Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Council Actions 05-18-26
MCGUIRE 43392-051826 City of Roanoke, Virginia CITY COUNCIL WZNI May 18, 2026 ROA N O K E 2:00 PM City Council Chamber 215 Church Avenue, SW AGENDA The City of Roanoke is a safe, caring and economically vibrant community in which to live, learn, work, play and prosper. A vibrant urban center with strong neighborhoods set amongst the spectacular beauty of Virginia's Blue Ridge. NOTICE: City Council meetings will be televised live and replayed on RVTV Channel 3 on Thursdays at 7:00 pm, and Saturdays from 10:00 am to 5:00 pm; and video streamed through YouTube Live at youtube.com/RoanokeVa. Council meetings are offered with closed captioning for the deaf or hard of hearing. 1. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL. All present. The Invocation was delivered by The Reverend Susan Bentley, Chaplain, Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Joseph L. Cobb. Welcome ANNOUNCEMENTS: 2. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Mayor Cobb advised that, going forward, the 2:00 pm meeting would begin with the Council Members providing "shout-outs" or announcing community events recently attended. The Council Members made the following announcements: Council Member Hagen "shouted out" the Gainsbroro Block Party and expressed that he was unable to attend the Local Colors, but heard it was a great event. He noted that he and the.Mayor attended the ribbon-cutting for Elderberry's and a football game of the Roanoke Rampage, raising funding in honor of Autumn Bushman. Council Member Sanchez-Jones "shouted out" the Local Colors and Gainsboro Block Party events, noting it was a beautiful day and both events were well attended. Vice-Mayor McGuire "shouted out" Local Colors and the Gainsboro Block Party, and he attended the Blue Ridge Land Conservancy celebration of 30 years and pointed out that former Council Member and Citizen of the Year, M. Rupert Cutler, received the Lifetime Achievement Award. Council Member Nash "shouted out" Local Colors and the Gainsboro Block Party, noting that most Council Members carpooled to attend the same events, and he attended the Southwest Chapter of CLUW (the Coalition of Labor Union Women) who hosted a banquet to honor laborers. Council Member Volosin "shouted out" Local Colors, advised that it was the 35th year of the festival and thanked everyone who participated in making it a great event. Council Member Powers "shouted out" the Women's Luncheon celebrating Art and Education at the Taubman Museum of Art and advised that it was an annual event and well attended by the City Manager and Mayor Cobb. She also attended a ribbon-cutting for Power Play, a mobile event company now serving Roanoke, Lynchburg and Charlottesville. Mayor Cobb "shouted out" the Beane Block Party held at the Melrose Branch Library on Friday, May 15, in celebration of the retirement of Antinette Beane, Librarian. Proclamation declaring the week of May 17-23, 2026 as National Public Works Week. Mayor Cobb read and presented the proclamation to Ross Campbell, Director, Department of Public Works and staff in attendance. Recognition of Melrose Plaza. The City Manager recognized Melrose Plaza as a recipient of the Virginia Economic Developer's Association, Community Economic Development Award, given at the VEDA Spring Conference held in Williamsburg, Virginia on March 25 - 27, 2026. She presented the Award to Donna Davis, Director of Community Engagement for Goodwill Industries of the Valleys, Inc. 3. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The City Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard. All matters will be referred to the City Manager for response, recommendation or report to the Council, as she may deem appropriate. Freeda Cathcart, appeared before the Council and addressed the importance of protecting the City's flood resilience and mitigating the heat dome effect. Dan Evans, appeared before the Council and spoke with regard to the Evans Spring property and conservation, and encouraged the Council to consider Option 3 presented by the City Planning Commission. Kathryn Hatan, appeared before the Council and urged the Council to consider stricter zoning laws on possible data centers and wetlands. 4. CONSENT AGENDA: APPROVED (7-0), AS AMENDED C-1. Minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday, May 4, 2026; recessed until Monday, May 11, 2026, for adoption of the FY 2026-2027 Recommended Budget. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispensed with the reading of the minutes and approved as recorded. C-2. A communication from Mayor Joseph L. Cobb requesting that City Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss the Council's Code of Conduct and Ethics, as well as each Council Member's obligations thereunder as permitted, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concurred in the request. C-3. A communication from the City Attorney requesting that City Council convene in a closed meeting to consult with legal counsel regarding a certain legal matter requiring the provision of legal advice by the City Attorney concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the Northwest area of the City of Roanoke, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(5), Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concurred in the request. C-4. A communication from the City Clerk advising of the resignation of Meg Smith as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, effective immediately. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accepted the resignation and received and filed the communication. C-5. A communication from the City Clerk advising of the resignation of Darnell Wood as a member of the Youth Athletics Review Board, effective immediately. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accepted the resignation and received and filed the communication. C-6. A communication from the City Clerk advising of the resignation of Jason Morgan as a member of the Mill Mountain Advisory Board, effective immediately. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accepted the resignation and received and filed the communication. C-7. Reports of qualification of the following individuals: Chad Scott as a member of the Virginia Western Community College Local Advisory Board for a four-year term'of office, commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2030; John Wiercioch as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission to replace Charlene Graves for a term of office ending June 30, 2028; Dawn Erdman as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission to replace William Penn for a three-year term of office commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2029; Gwendolyn Coleman as a member of the Roanoke Valley Juvenile Detention Center Commission for a three-year term of office commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2029; Charles Whitney Brown as a member of the Board of Trustees, City of Roanoke Pension Plan for a four-year term of office, commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2030; Laura Carini as a member of the City of Roanoke Finance Board for a two-year term of office, commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2028; Julie Payne as a member of the Roanoke Valley Juvenile Detention Center Commission for a three-year term of office commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2029; and Pamela Smith as a member of the Gun Violence Prevention Commission to replace Elliott Major for a three-year term of office commencing April 1, 2026, and ending March 31, 2029. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Received and filed. REGULAR AGENDA: 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. 6. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: 1. Brief overview of the activities of VIA Centers for Neurodevelopment and impact in the City of Roanoke. Zenith Barrett, Regional Advancement Officer, VIA Centers for Neurodevelopment. (Sponsored by Mayor Cobb) Received and filed. 7. REPORTS OF CITY OFFICERS AND THE CITY MANAGER: 1. City Manager: BRIEFINGS: Presentation of Safety Action Plan (SAP) and Speed Management Action Plan (SMAP) - 15 minutes. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: a. Acceptance and Appropriation of the Virginia Business Ready Sites Program Grant for Site Development of Tract 8. Adopted Ordinance No. 43392-051826. (6-1, Vice-Mayor McGuire voted no) b. Recommendations of the Human Services Advisory Board for Funding of Qualified Agencies for Fiscal Year 2027. Withdrawn. c. Acceptance of a Donation of Privately Owned Parcels, Official Tax Map Nos. 3140815 and 3140819, located at 0 Hollins Road, N.E. Adopted Ordinance. No. 43393-051826. (7-0) d. Appropriation of Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Capital Improvement Plan debt-funded projects. Adopted Ordinance No. 43394-051826. (7-0) COMMENTS OF THE CITY MANAGER. The City Manager offered the following comments: Construction is underway on the Riverland Road/Star Trail Connection Project, with crews currently installing a major drainage system along-Riverland Road. Upcoming phases include improvements to the Star Trail parking'area, water quality upgrades, and a new pedestrian link connecting the Garden City Greenway to Star Trail. Work at the Garden City Boulevard and Riverland Road intersection is expected to begin in June after the school year ends, with overall project completion anticipated in Fall 2026. The Westside Boulevard/Salem Turnpike Pedestrian Improvements Project has completed its underground utility work and is now moving into curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement restoration phases. Construction remains on schedule for completion by mid-June, with funding provided through a VDOT Transportation Alternatives Grant and matching city funds. PUBLIC MATTERS FOLLOW-UP Jenel Few, Public Information Officer, reported on the following matters from the April 20, 2026, City Council Meeting: School Funding At the April 20 meeting, 6 residents shared concerns and suggestions regarding the proposed budget and its impact on Roanoke City Public Schools. All speakers received an acknowledgment that their comments were noted. Raven Technology During the April 20 meeting, 8 residents expressed concerns about Raven gunshot detection technology. All speakers received an acknowledgment that their comments were noted. Transit Advocates Two members of the Bus Riders of Roanoke Advocacy Group spoke on April 20 in favor of transit funding and sidewalk repairs and expansion. Both speakers received an acknowledgment that their comments were noted. Vandalism in Old Southwest A resident of the Old Southwest neighborhood shared concerns at the April 20 meeting about vandalism in the area. The resident received an acknowledgement that his comments were noted, and he was given the contact information for the Southwest Zone Lieutenant with the Police Department. Economic Development in Northwest Roanoke their comments were noted. Transit Advocats Two members of he Bus Riders of Roanoke Advocacy Group spoke on April 20 in favor of transit funding and sidewalk repairs and expansion. Both speakers received an acknowledgment that their comments were noted. Vandalism in Old Southwest A resident of the Old Southwest neighborhood shared concerns at the April 20 meeting about vandalism in the area. The resident received an acknowledgement that his comments were noted, and he was given the contact information for the Southwest Zone Lieutenant with the Police Department. Economic Development in Northwest Roanoke During the April 0 meeting, a resident shared concern and ideas regarding economic development opportunities in the Northwest part of the City. Community Engagement reached out to share information from Economic Development about several initiatives in that area — including the Main Street America prograrri along the 11th Street corridor, the creation of the Melrose Business Associ9tion, the opening of Melrose Plaza and redevelopment of retail centers along Hershberger Road. Architectural R view Board Update Additional details were requested in reference to the Architectural Review Board's (ARB) role in reviewing Certificate of Appropriateness applications. Planning staff ar�continuing discussions on expanding the ARB's role in the application revie process. Coordination with legal counsel indicates that increased ARB involvement is feasible as long as reviews occur during publicly noticed meetings and decisions are made collectively. Staff would continue preparing application materials and agendas, while the ARB would take formal action during thee meetings. Approvals would include a note that additional building permits may still be required. Special-called meetings may be needed to support the workflow. Staff are finalizing logistical details and will meet with the ARB soon to outline next steps. In the meantime, planning staff have resolved the recent administrative review backlog. As of April 27, 2026, 22 applications wer overdue for review; by May 9, all had been processed, resulting in 12 a provals and 10 re-submittal requests. This clears the backlog , and restores nor al review operations. Recycling DelayGraphics Ms. Powers regested additional communication regarding recycling pick-up delays. In addition to website banner graphics, alerts, press releases, and social media, a graphic informing residents of recycling pickup delays was displayed on RVTV Channel 3 from April 21 to May 2, 2026 when the regular recycling schedule resum d. There were no s eakers during the May 4 "Hearing of Citizens on Public Matters." 2. CITY ATTORN Y: None. 10. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: 1. Resolution ratifying, approving, and affirming the action taken by the Greater Roanoke Transit Company (GRTC) d/b/a Valley Metro to implement Fare Free Election Day Bus Service for Tuesday, April 21, 2026; Tuesday, August 4, 2026; and Tuesday,-November 3, 2026. Adopted Resolution No. 43395-051826. (7-0) 2. Resolution appointing two Trustees to the Roanoke City School Board for terms of office commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2029. Adopted Resolution No. 43396-051826. (5-0, Vice-Mayor McGuire and Council Member Sanchez-Jones abstained from the vote) 11. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City Council. Mayor Cobb announced that on Wednesday, May 20, 2026, the Melrose Branch Library will host a Movie Night all ages are invited to attend. Also at 7:00 p.m., on-May 20, 2026, there will be the Annual Ride of Silence hosted by PedalSafe and Cardinal Bicycle leaving from the downtown market area. Council Member Hagen reminded citizens to always check backseats for pets and children during the hot weather. 2. Vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council. None. 12. RECESSED - 3:50 pm. The City Council Meeting will stand in recess; and thereafter reconvene at 7:00 pm, in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. City of Roanoke, Virginia CITY COUNCIL OZiut 7:00 m p ROANOKE City Council Chamber 215 Church Avenue, SW 13. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL. All present. The Invocation was delivered by Mayor Joseph L. Cobb. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Joseph L. Cobb. Welcome Certification of Closed Meeting. (7-0) 14. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The City Council,sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard. If deemed appropriate, matters will be referred to the City Manager for response, recommendation or report to the City Council. Jacob Watts, appeared before the Council and advised that Mill Mountain be revitalized and provided suggestions to improve the area, such as placing a Ferris wheel on top of the mountain and reinstating the incline railroad to assist with transportation on the mountain. 15. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: None. 16. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Request of Douglas Devine to rezone property located at 1007 3 '/ Street SE, bearing Official Tax Map No. 4020920, from I-1, Light Industrial District, to UF, Urban Flex District. Douglas Devine, Applicant, Spokesperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 43397-051826. (7-0) 2. Request of the City of Roanoke to consider and adopt updates to the Complete Streets Policy and adopt the Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan as a part of City Plan 2040, the City's comprehensive plan adopted in 2020. Ian Coffey; Spokesperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 43398-051826. (7-0) a. Adoption of the 2026 Safety Action and Speed Management Action Plans. Adopted Resolution No. 43399-051826. (7-0) 3. Tax Exemption Request for real property owned by Villa.Heights Rec Center, LLC and 1729 Patterson Avenue, LLC (both properties operated under Restoration Housing) located at 2750 Hoover Street and 1729 Patterson Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia. Adopted Ordinance No. 43400-051826. (6-1, Council Member Powers voted no) 4. Tax Exemption Request for real property owned by Assisi Animal Clinics of Virginia, Inc., located at 725 Franklin Road, SW, Roanoke, Virginia. Adopted Ordinance No. 43401-051826. (7-0) 5. Request of the City of Roanoke to review and consider adopting amendments to Evans Spring Plan: A Comprehensive Guide for Development adopted as a part of City Plan 2040, the City's comprehensive plan. Katharine Gray; Interim Planning Manager; Spokesperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 43402-051826, as amended. (7-0) 6. Request of the City of Roanoke to propose amendments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, intended to facilitate context sensitive housing development; to promote community health and wellness; to encourage purposeful land use to make changes to the use tables for multiple purpose, industrial, and planned unit development districts; and to make changes to clarify and correct elements of the zoning code, such amendments being for the public purposes of promoting public health, public safety, and good zoning practice. Katharine Gray, Interim Planning Manager; Spokesperson. Matter postponed to a subsequent City Council Meeting. ADJOURNED - 11:05 pm. CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 Church Avenue,S.W., Suite 452 Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2444 _ Fax:(540)853-1145 E-mail: MAYOR@ROANOKEVA.GOV JOSEPH L.COBB Mayor May 18, 2026 The Honorable Vice-Mayor McGuire and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Vice-Mayor McGuire and Members of Council: This is to request to convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss the Council's Code of Conduct and Ethics, as well as each Council Member's obligations thereunder as permitted, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Sincerely, q7C14-0-641 -- Joseph L. Cobb Mayor JLC:ctw Office of the City Attorney ROANOKE To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: A.communication from the City Attorney requesting that City Council convene in a closed meeting to consult with legal counsel regarding a certain legal matter requiring the provision of legal advice by the City Attorney concerning a prospective business or industry or the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the Northwest area of the City of Roanoke, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(5), Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended. The City Attorney is requesting that City Council convene in a closed meeting to consult with legal counsel regarding a certain legal matter requiring the provision of legal advice by the City Attorney concerning a prospective business or industry orr the expansion of an existing business or industry where no previous announcement has been made of the business' or industry's interest in locating or expanding its facilities in the Northwest area of the City of Roanoke, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(5), Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended. • Laura Carini, City Attorney 4 ' :�, //,A, , CITY OF ROANOKE 46.- _� OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK _ ' ' 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 ' a'� Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 `• 1 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC CECELIA F.MCCOY,CMC E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov Deputy City Clerk City Clerk RUTH VISUETE-PEREZ,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk May 18, 2026 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Cobb and Members of Council: This is to advise that Meg Smith has tendered her resignation as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, effective immediately. Sincerely, Cecelia F. McCoy, CMC City Clerk 5/5/26,4:28 PM Inbox-Emily Clark-Outlook 0. Outlook Re: Upcoming Virtual VCU Land Use Training I May through June 2026 From Emily Clark <emily.clark@roanokeva.gov> Date Tue 5/5/2026 4:28 PM To Emily Clark <emily.clark@roanokeva.gov> From: Meg Smith<meg@roanoketoday.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 5, 2026 4:11 PM . To: Emily Clark<emily.clark@roanokeva.gov> • Subject:[EXTERNAL] Re: Upcoming Virtual VCU Land Use Training I May through June 2026 Hey Emily! Thanks so much for the nudge— it has been a whirlwind couple of weeks at the office and I still have"email Emily"waiting on my to-do list.Apologies for the delay! Yes, unfortunately I will need to resign my position on the Board of Zoning Appeals. I so appreciate all.of the connections I made and the knowledge I gained from my time serving:I'm incredibly grateful for the opportunity, and will-miss serving with you and the rest of the team. All the best, Meg Meg Smith COO REALTOR® MKB, REALTORS® Buy Local, Live Local 540.353.2803 www.mkbrealtors.com • https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACgAC%2FEWg0AuG6rnMF6YEgDo6OMUxa8JwADKLevRQAA 1/1 0 �; CITY OF ROANOKE, '" %4r-J. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 l ', 7 .:� Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 }* _'t r "` Telephone: (540)853-2541 "' Fax: (540)853-1145 CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC CECELIA F.MCCOY,CMC E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov Deputy City Clerk City Clerk RUTH VISUETE-PEREZ,CMC. Assistant Deputy City Clerk May 18, 2026 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Cobb and Members of Council: This is to advise that Darnell Wood has tendered his resignation as a member of the Youth Athletics Review Board, effective immediately. Sincerely, ctI Cecelia F. McCoy, CMC City Clerk • Cecelia Webb . -• From: Ruth Visuete Perez Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 8:53 AM. To: Cecelia Webb Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Resignation from Youth Athletics Review Board Best regards, • Ruth Visuete Perez, CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk City of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Suite 456 Roanoke,Virginia 24011 540-853-2541 ruth.visueteperez@roanokeva.gov From: Darnell Wood<dwoodsr0503@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2026 5:33 PM To:Cindy McFall <cindy.rncfall@roanokeva.gov> Cc:Jason M. Hariston <jason.hariston@roanokeva.gov>;Alanis Osgood <Alanis.Osgood@roanokeva.gov>;,Patricia H. Sheedy<psheedy@rcps.info>;Jaime Mather<thernather2@gmail.com>; Brandon McCall <brandonmccallabg@gmail.com>;James Russell <jrussell@vt.edu>; City Clerk<City.Clerk@roanokeva.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Resignation from Youth Athletics Review Board - You don't often get email from dwoodsr0503@gmail.com. Learn why this is important.' CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or on clicking links from unknown senders.- Dear Cindy: I hope you are doing well. I am writing to inform you that I will be formally resigning from my position on the Youth Athletics Review Board due to some recent family events.As you might know,the last few years have been difficult with my oldest son passing in 2025, my wife's serious health issues and most recently my mother-in-law having a stroke three weeks ago and passing away today. Through all of these events I was able to continue to serve on the Youth Athletics Review Board without interruption. I am now at a point in my life whereby I cannot continue to fulfill this role at a level it deserves:It has been a pleasure to serve alongside you and the other members of the Youth Athletic Revievv Board. I am truly grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the mission and the work we've done together. I • appreciate your understanding during this time, and I remain supportive of the board's continued success. I pray that youth athletics will continue to improve and participation is increased within the City of Roanoke. Please let me know if there is anything needed from me during this transition. Sincerely, - Darnell Wood 2 0 5 - CITY OF ROANOKE ,'i.J�•• a. OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 ‘,.,,,_,,.!i_b / e. Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC CECELIA F.MCCOY,CMC E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov Deputy City Clerk City Clerk RUTH VISUETE-PEREZ,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk May 18, 2026 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor. Cobb and Members of Council: This is to advise that Jason Morgan has tendered his resignation as a member of the Mill Mountain Advisory Board, effective immediately. Sincerely, c , -od-f(-' Cecelia F. McCoy, CMC City Clerk Cecelia Webb From: Ruth Visuete Perez Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 8:31 AM To: Cecelia Webb Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Resignation Best regards, Ruth Visuete Perez, CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk City of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Suite 456 Roanoke,Virginia 24011 540-853-2541 ruth.visueteperez(@roanokeva.gov From: Cindy McFall <cindy.mcfall@roanokeva.gov> Sent:Thursday, May 7; 2026 4:59 PM To: Ruth Visuete Perez<ruth.visueteperez@roanokeva.gov> Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Re: Resignation Ruth, I apologize, I thought I had sent this to you.See Jason Morgan's resignation from the Mill Mountain Advisory Board below.Thank you. � Cindy McFall,CPRP,AFO I Director �°'�' 215 Church Avenue I Room 303 I Roanoke,VA 24011 INV ® CAPRA P:540.853.1198 I E:Cindy.McFall@RoanokeVa.gov ACCREDITED Buildinga welcomingcommunitythrough PLAY ROANOKE , 9 PARKS AND RECREATION °a�•n�•` Health and Well-Being I Inclusion I Service Excellence I Sustainability ..From:Jason Morgan<morganid10@gmaii.com> Sent: Friday,April 24, 2026 4:06 PM To:Cindy McFall<cindy.mcfall@roanokeva.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Resignation CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or on clicking links from unknown senders. i Hey Cindy!As much as I would love to stay on the board until I take the bench, I think it is better that Igo ahead and resign, effective from the last meeting. It's probably a good time a considering elections are next month. I will miss serving with everyone. -Jason On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 2:00 PM Cindy McFall<cindy.mcfall@roanokeva.gov>wrote: I Hi Jason, I hope everything is going well with you. I am reaching to request that you send me an email resigning your appointment to the MMAB and the effective date. I will send that to the City Clerk's office so we can announce the vacancy. I am assuming our last meeting in March was your last but I do not want to make that assumption.So please let me know in just a brief statement so we can get the ball rolling on recruiting.Thank you for all you have done for Parks and Recreation and the MMAB over the years. Best of everything to you. 411111 ROANOKE q° Y ash Ii PARKS A RECREATION 2 Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Chad Scott, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Virginia Western Community College Local Advisory Board for a four-year term of office, commencing July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2030, according to the best of my ability. (So help me God.) 41/1/11 CHAD SCOTT The foregoing oath of office was taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me by Chad Scott this V day of Apr( I 2026. Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court 014 ep-e-n By ` � / lerk Oath ors. Afr maio©r of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I,J?)hn Miemmioch, do solemnly swear(or affirm)that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission to replace Charlene Graves for a term of office ending June 30, 2028, according to the best of my ability. (So help me God.) -41Fir JOO aM WOERCDOCH The foregoing oath of office was taken. sworn to, and subscribed before me by John Wig=r©ioch this day of 2026. Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court Clerk Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Dawn Erdman, do solemnly swear(or affirm)that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission to replace William Penn for a three-year term of office commencing July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2029, according to the best of my ability. (So help me God. DA The foregoing oath of office was taken,A sworn to, and subscribed before me by Dawn Erdman this / day of N/ r 2026. Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court By �. . ' -- �� ' Clerk 1 Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Gwendolyn Coleman, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Roanoke Valley Juvenile Detention Center Commission for a three-year term of office commencing July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2029, according to the best of my ability. (So help me God.) .) (-1 GWEND LYN COLEMAN The foregoing oath of office was taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me by Gwendolyn Coleman this J day of PRoi 2026. Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court By ' , 1)( U1/ , Clerk • Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Charles Whitney Brown, Jr. , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States 'of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Board of Trustees, City of Roanoke Pension Plan for a four-year term of office, commencing July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2030, according to the best of my ability. (So help me God.) CHARLES WH NEY BR WN, JR. The foregoing oath of office was taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me by Charles Whitney Brown, Jr., this ( day of itnt 2026. Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court / iet By' /i 0/ /' / , Cerl k ii, Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Laura Carini, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the City of Roanoke Finance Board for a two-year term of office, commencing July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2028, according to the best of my ability. (So help me God.) c----- C 1 LAU C I r The foregoing oath of office was taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me by Laura Carini this 0 day of K 2026. Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court B , 1 /i I .i. J / !AA, , lerk Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Julie Payne, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Roanoke Valley Juvenile Detention •Center Commission for a three-year term of office commencing July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2029, according to the best of my ability. (So help me God.) JULIE PAY The foregoing oath of office was taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me by Julie Payne this T`fjday of-'( 026. Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court Jerk Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Pamela Smith, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Gun Violence Prevention Commission to replace Elliott Major for a three-year -term of office commencing April 1, 2026 and ending March 31, 2029, according to the best of m a ility. (So elp me God.) AMELA SMITH The foregoing oath of office was taken, sworn to, and subscribed before me by Pamela Smith this (Q day of 1v L Wai 2026. Brenda S. Hamilton, Clerk of the Circuit Court B t , Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE ' 44:44/*-- ,,,,,/,9 ier - 70.00,t OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY David L. Collins tker102--,.,.. 1 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING Deputy City Attorney , =\ :`1,g708A \\ .. 215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW ROANOKE,VIRGINIA 24011-1595 Jennifer Crook Braxton Kimberly P.Beamer Laura M. Carini TELEPHONE 540-853-2431 Lalita Brim-Poindexter City Attorney FAX 540-853-1221 Assistant City Attorneys EMAIL: laura.carini@roanokeva.gov . . May 18, 2026 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City CounCil Roanoke, Virginia Re: Request for Closed Meeting Dear Mayor Cobb.and Council Members:. This is to request that City Council convene in a closed meeting for the:discusSion of an amendment of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds, negotiating new consideration and promises, and discussion of the terms or scope of such contract, where discussion in an opensession would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public-body,pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(29),:Code of Virginia(1950), as amended. .: Sincerely, Laura M. Carini . City Attorney • , • LMC/arw . , • :. : :. �40 = CITY OF ROANOKE a� �i4i, . . . . David L. Collins f OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ^i Deputy City Attorney: 464.MUNICIPAL BUILDING - - : . : CHURCH AVENUE,SW ROANOKE,VIRGINIA'24011-1595 Jennifer Crook Braxton • : .: - Kimberly P.Beamer - Laura M. Carini - TELEPHONE 540-853-2431 Labia Brim-Poindexter - :: :City Attorney = .:: = . _. : FAX Assistant Ci Attorneys :. . FAX 54Q-853-1221 . . . y EMAIL: laura.carini@roanokeva.gov - May 18, 2026 . - The Honorable Mayor and Members: : . : _ - - • of City Council::: : : :: - . - - . • Roanoke,:Virginia . . -Re: :Request for closed meeting : • Dear-Mayor Cobb and Council:Members: - This.:is to request that City Council convene in a closed meeting to consult with legal counsel regarding ' a certain: legal matter requiring the provision :Of legal advice.by- the City Attorney-.concerning:contract :. obligations involving:a City-owned facility in the Central part of the City of_Roanoke, pursuant to--Sec: 2.2- - ' : 3711(A)(8), Code:of Virginia, (1950), as amended. : . With kindest personal regards,.I am - :Sincerely, - . : -•. Laura-M: Cantu . . .. City Attorney . - .LMC/arw ' CQ 4 r CITY OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL 1'' g x 7..r 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Suite 456 Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 � Ls9 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 JOSEPH L.COBB E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov Council Members Mayor Stephen T.McGuire Phazhon Nash. Nicolas Hagen Vivian Sanchez-Jones Peter J.Volosin Evelyn W.Powers May 18, 2026 The Honorable Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: I am sponsoring a presentation by-Zenith.Barrett, Regional Advancement Officer, VIA.Centers for Neurodevelopment, to provide an overview of the organization's activities, at the regular meeting of City Council to be held on Monday, May 18, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. . Sincerely, . Joseph L. Cobb - Mayor JLC:ctw - -4. 44 ; Att.4k Building Inclusive Communities M aMay 18, 2026 p � t". 1 ANNIVERSARY IllACO NEURODEUELOPME ENTERSFR NT Undying science odernce to build o brighter future MISSION & VISION OUR MISSION To empower people to embrace the strengths and meet the challenges related to autism and 00,1110 neurodevelopmental disabilities byproviding ' � `" p � �-• ° -� . compassionate, evidence-based services "F a throughout their lives. .•is � • Y• f n x*�• f. • OUR VISION ` . . .. We envision a world in which individuals, families, and communities support, embrace, and celebrate the differences related to autism and neurodevelopmental disabilities so that all lead more fulfilling lives. THE WHY t,alk„,„, ; , a ii {; 17........ir„rt .... .,,,, 4_, 000 ,,,4ii in 45 N. � , 1 � ,� a.,.., i?„4. _ 40, 7\-iltiiti f4 • ,,,, .. Adults have an autism diagnosis in the ' # r0l �� United States ail'i 0 , , I 0 f ' 155 000 + People in Virginia cope with "` neurodevelopmental challenges accordingso to the National Institute of Health * i 4d,.yi�,..;. PROGRAMS & SERVICES Pediatric ABA Services Specialized early intervention program for young children with autism, ages 2 to 6 School Services Specialized day schools for children and adolescents with autism and other developmental disabilities serving as extensions to the public schools Adult Services Day services and community-based programs that focus on active skill building and daily engagement ADULT SERVICES . . ..., A ... . or, / 4 4 40 • Day Services o VIA Club & Hub lb • Employment Services ta. 4 o Achieve Employment _ o VIAble Ventures • Support Services Behavioral Consultation *, j,: dr IN \ 4 it / ♦ S Helping people live, work, and play to the fullest extent possible. i .r THE WHY .,. i• op_ wi4 I , .. : , 1014_ w 1 rs • .....„ N Ilk Nil/ a in 31 . A, MAR Children have an autism diagnosis in the United - r StateIt ': .- r: • ) PEDIATRIC ABA SERVICES ., 4. __ • Expanding services into Roanoke, August 2026 - i 1 ;' ot • Pilot program servingupto 10-12 children p g 1 tt - _ i 1 . • Prepare children for kindergarten readiness ,: # - et and long-term success .) 1 The earlier we start, the more we can help. THE IMPACT ON ROANOKE School Services: • Approximately 120 students and adults in Roanoke • Extension of the local school system Adult Services: • 98% of individuals in the Club & Hub program participated in community engagement activities Pediatric ABA Services: • 85% average reduction in challenging behavior Hoping to replicate model and desired impact in Roanoke CREATING SHARED VALUE The buddili ng family � ` at Roanoke VIA Day ) School tiri, , 1 ,ii.,, , Watch their Y story here ate. _. 1 , GET INVOLVED � �� M { t 4 \ We invite you to: 'A 9 Take a tour \ 'u - -. (1: Visit our website viacenters.org APA in Like, share, and follow us on social media `" ANNIVERSARY %V AFACENTERS FOR . NEURODEVELOPMENT Bridging science and service to build a brighter future May 2026 Roanoke , ,,,,„,, ,... n' SafetyROANOKE Action Plan Vision Zero Action PlanSafety ,,,,,, May 11 , 2026 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • VISION =_: - � +��� • _ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Z E R:. - , ROANOKE .. Roanoke 's Recent Crash History Fatal crash victims 80 72 2019-2023 69 70 5' 60 54 54 50 38.3% Motor 38.3% 40 Vehicle Occupants Pedestrians 30 20 13 10 9 5 10 • • 23.4% 0 Motorcyclists 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 tK.Fatal Injury --0—A.Severe injury 2024-25 Numbers Figure 2, Fatal and serious Injury crashes by year, 2019-2023. Fatal All crashes 2024* 9 1865 VISION 2025* 15 1459 Z ER\i %change* 50% -24% ROA N O K E *Through December leach year Safety Action Plan & Speed Management Plan Figure 12 FHWA Safe System Approach • Based on Safe System �Rous INJURY!s uNACC a Pt�''y eprQQ Approach ��;w 44 • Plans are consistent with s 54). �� d ersVehicles each other ttl 0 THE Complement & inform W . . , SAFE SYSTEM m APPROACH n Post-Crash Safe related projects such as 1.t Care Speeds Q o ,, Envision Williamson Road ;,,, d/Ak. ,s." $, Safe 4`` .2, Roads �c, R�S�NS%cI ry IS sHAR � �� High In u and Risk Networki_ J �/ ck„,444 , ... ,,,,� ROA l AIRPORT < • Aii1F'iiR1 .. II ' R j ,,.., S • Ros� • 'SALEM , IM 1 P � • ,, .. !„ V /..• ./.4. ,I •••• ,... 1."*1111.1"Plir‘ , ---. t --.,.,_ C • PPQNMN„, _ 2 CI z 55, High Risk Network Level of Risk Critical High Injury Network High 9 All Modes HIN `� °1' Medium a o 5 1 mi �,r . • 1 I Extensive Outreach Was Critical National Night Out Pop-up events Community meetings ,- — . - '' Z --v.. .T ___ ire IA Share your thoughts on how Roanoke can eliminate fatal and X r � wviii • severe injuries on our roadways and achieve VISION ZERO! , • - —. >�'Hlul . r-. e; SQ2� �' • �/� IQ 60 w«a Pr GCS ' ,^ ., u J A I", Xrc9 S of „,A,,, I VISION N.�•>� � `�� Z ER,..... ROANOKE Engagement included ■ PedalSafe Roanoke & Greenways Commission events ■ GoFEST! Activation and Demonstration Project ■ Envision Williamson Road steering committee ■ Neighborhood Associations Presidents presentation ■ Project Advisory Committee meetings ■ Survey and Interactive Map TOOLE DESIGN Survey Responses : Biggest Concerns No sidewalks or places to bike 36% Dangerous intersections 28% No crosswalks or 26% pedestrian signals Poor visibility and sightlines Poor street lighting 16% Wide streets that encourage fi °Io driving too fast Streets with lots of driveways, 2% alleys, and intersections VISION Z ER'. ROANOKE • What is the single most important thing the City could do to improve traffic safety? Word cloud 0 problem (cross '" children pull clear cat pedestrians infrastructure steer cams intersections vehiclesw� t streets. widely cameras cyclists SE design. drive. 55 , road I eea n es Downtown crosswalks drivers Ave make run design stops Ensure space have. claim them. calls humps people police sidewalk knowledge Set are install SIgnSsmoke DC City Put laws • red areas �o lower lane visual ass stopareas. pspeeding grown street school 15 e_ residential officers unit IF live rrla or fix giveenforce bike2 4 ca rs me' driving st , cities sidewalks 5 fines o lights high roads closer �� I enforcement speeds light Build safer St. streets as: weed • round s l ovv .. Educate crime. pedestrian . adways speed. state , bumps) crossing living travel sign Distracted mph) lives. create Atlanta art dose years. - P VISION Z ERv ROANOKE Walk Audits ...... NW: Salem Turnpike SW: Franklin Road 44, _, SE: Jamison n & Bu II itt Ave 1 i I 7 ,,-- ,- 1 1 - „--- ,:ri.csk.4.? IP , ,, ,..,„.., ,,.. . .,. .. , „... ,.. ,.... 1 •, .,'''t,^ •'' . \ I. t t • , , ' • .1. r . • -- , ,, '--1, ' ' • WIF I , 'Iv- - —..',.. . . I . . . . , i'—'ile .., at‘''' ,' --dr, • . : ---.. . C 1 Ac.t :7 '...''' ‘'..V.' . , . . :,.,.• . 1 e .. , . .... „ . . '4 7:-.."' . „ . ';-,.,.-.., - fi - • '''' ' 'IN ,,, ,- . , ., VISION' ZER'- 4* ROANOKE Crash Data & Community Agree • People on foot, bike, motorcycle are most vulnerable • Speeding and Distracted Driving are the most pervasive issues • Roadway network encourages and enables Speeding and Distracted Driving ; better roadway design can discourage and prevent these behaviors • Lack of infrastructure for biking/walking limits people's options VISION ZERO ROANOKE Priority Issues & Focus Areas • Speed R°A NHnORT . . 7------\, • Distraction 114• Pedestrian and Bikes+ safety SALEM m I . �/�l � • . 40, VINTON • Motorcyclist safety ��' I> • Schools and youth travel ifinir. ' • Culture of safety • Encourage active transportation 6 Priority Locations \\\, i VISION' © Intersection Focus � Corridor Focus Area-wide Focus Z E RC High Injury Network ROANOKE 05 Schools I . l . l Figure 25 Safety Measures 30 Safety Measures Measure Relevance Application 1,11 c N � C - C C N O L O 10 N V N 4. I- tl " VI0 f i O N = O d in .C 1 6. Cl V © O M 'L L al 1 °. R p a m i t1 X � v c Z •t`p - , !3: ::edtb0n rx x� ,,, /, x\ �� Island/Median x x x x x .$,. \ ,,,, 4,„• G-,,,,r) , „ , I Curb Extensions x x \e x x i, i % o � ��� Curb Ramps x x x x ,� �=". _ ,r, Daylight 4 x x x x x � `' ., Intersection SS s ,+ Hardened x x x x x Centerline VISIOc , High Visibility x x x x x N Crosswalk ZERO Horizontal R.OA N O K E / Deflection x x x x Actions & Strategies Short-Term Actions Lead Support Measure Relevance Sate System m Element Adopt the speed management plan Transportation RPD Adoption Several Implementation items Included In the Speed Management Speeding Safe Speeds $ Plan overlap with the Safety Action Ptan Integrate Safe System Language and metrics ihtc updated Transportation Planning Updated Guidance Ensure street design guidance contributes to safe system and Culture of Safety Safe Roads $ Complete Streets Policy and metrics meets current best practice designs Launcf Vision Zero Dashboard on City website Asset Management Transportation Page on website Commitment to transparency and accountability Culture or safety Safe System $ Update Right-of-Way Permit standards to reflect Safe System Stormwater, Ensure utility work occurs safety and meetings approach and language Transportation Engineering New Standards Adopted Gty/V00T standards Culture of Safety Safe Roads 5 Update guidelines for deployment and use of traffic control Example:add High Sc hoots to Locations where RRFDs can be used devices In school zones Transportation RCPS,RPD Revised guidance In school zones Schools Safe Roads $ Continue PAC as a Vision Zero Task Farce Transportation PAC 4 mtgs/year Commitment to transparency and accountability Culture of Safety Safe System Si Execute grant award. Funding secu red from USDOT Safe Streets and Roads implement School Zone demonstration pro)ect(SSAA) Transportation RCPS Schools Safe Roads $$ Install demonstrations for All program • introduce speed enforcement cameras in schools zones RPDlsherrif's office Transportation.RCPS Number of pilot sites Publish RFP In 2026 Schools Safe Speeds S$$ Dedicate operations and maintenance resources to Storrnwater/ Transportation Sweeping& Purchase equipment(e.g.,small streetsweeper►for maintenance of Culture of Safety Safe Roads $$$ Vision Zero implementation Transportation maintenance metrics quick build Infrastructure delineated by shur-curb.flex-posts etc. VISION ZER�� ROANOKE Implementation Action Plan helps: • Prioritize projects Intersections Planning Funding Design Construction • Support grants Brandon Avenue and Brambleton Avenue • Brandon Avenue and Franklin Road X Establish default Brandon Avenue and Main Street roadway designs Dale Avenue and 13th Street Franklin Road and Wonju Street Action Plan informs: Grandin Road and Brandon Avenue Gus Nicks Blvd and Orange Avenue X X • Hershberger Road and Cove Road HSIP HSIP Maintenance 1-3 years Melrose Avenue and Lafayette Blvd OIPI HSIP HSIP • Grants 3-5 years Orange Avenue and 24th Street SS SS • C I P 3-6 years Orange Avenue and Burrell/Gainsboro X X Gainsboro Orange Avenue and Williamson SS SS Action Plan supports: Williamson Road and 10th Street X Williamson Road and Hershberger Road HSIP Williamson Road and Liberty Road X • Comprehensive Plan • Council priorities VISION • Climate Policy ZER) ROANOKE KSI Crashes by Year VISION! = Fatalities BO ZERO Nu y 0,if..elcz ea .< ROAN O K E ✓ardale o I ns City of Roanoke amateurs En? :xt 50 Safety Action Plan Dashboard N rmtr i. Usingthis dashboard,you can visualize �• y .,,r. +o different trends and cross•sections in crash ' t II,"✓ data.Click on the controls oelowto ' t%• explore crashes by council district,year,or Serious Injuries T.* w + • • Cek. 30 mode Data is show • ':. n from 2021-2025 �' :� • ••f� 20 d SelectaYear �' y� f, d.' =,r 2 6 2 ••. -ti . 4) ,,........,.„, ..,___. . ,. 2024 202F.. '.• ' ‘':.4 'or,.. 2C21 2)22 202' 2024 232E r ri '\' AL Pedestrian Crash .4r F t r r.rl •.4, ,"Si. _+ '• { i v ``, KSI Crashes by Roadway Type A I Modes ''e ' !! ABicycle Crash Pd0 Vee Cave Snn,., • 1 tr Parkway ecres -0reit 0 IrnopalArta'ia Ii i:�o -clia: Loa \G N Eso-omTorr.Garmr,.SatcGraoh.GocTechrotoros cc.METI,NASA USGS.EPA NPS.USCA.USFNS Powered bu En Action Plan is Roadmap to Zero Fatalities ......, Roanoke Vision Zero Pledge I pledge to play my part in making Roanoke streets wlp • *r1i 111r safer for everyone. Because my choices and actions _."'"" NO NEED FOR SPEED matter,I will: delTake responsibility for the safety of others,especially the most vulnerable road users and community mem !!! iiiiihr - bers including people on foot and bike,motorcyclists, i children,the elderly,and people with disabilities.This 0 4 includes never obstructing crosswalks,sidewalks, mobility tracks,bus stops or loading zones. j7;') Drive safely at all times by never texting or using my 1 ? r phone while driving,always keeping my eyes on the road, ill I and never driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. ,_.. Follow the rules of road and all traffic laws, signs, and - signals. Specifically,I will always obey the posted speed ,, ' r limit,stop or yield to people crossing the street,main- VISIONtain a safe distance from those around me including— �-�-.,_. -, giving cyclists at least 3 feet of space when passing,and ZER41. took twice for motorcyclists. Residents are reminded of their traffic safety responsibility on painted signal boxes and ongoing ROA N O K E information and education campaigns. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA. The 18th day of May 2026. No. 43392-051826. AN ORDINANCE authorizing the acceptance of Phase II of the Virginia Business Ready Site Program ("VBRSP") Grant award to the City of Roanoke ("City") from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership ("VEDP"); authorizing the execution of any required documents on behalf of the City; appropriating funds detailed more fully infra, and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. WHEREAS, the City received a grant totaling $7,500,000 from VEDP to elevate Tract 8 at the Roanoke Centre for Industry & Technology ("RCIT") from a Tier III to a Tier V site, issuing funds in two phases; WHEREAS, the Council accepted and appropriated Phase I of the Grant award pursuant to Resolution No. 43034-091624 and Ordinance No. 43035-091624; and WHEREAS, the additional $7,300,000 in Grant funds will fund Phase II work to elevate Tract 8 to a Tier V site. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The City does hereby accept the Phase II VBRSP funding from the VEDP in the amount of $7,300,000, with a local match of $2,440,500, already appropriated through 2026 bond issuance, to elevate Tract 8 at RCIT from a Tier III to a Tier V site, as being more particularly described in the City Manager's Report dated May 18, 2026. 2. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized to accept, execute, and file, on behalf of the City, any and all documents required to obtain such funding. All such documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. 3. The City Manager, or designee, is further directed to furnish such additional information as may be required to implement and administer the foregoing grant. 4. The following sections of the Capital Projects Fund appropriations be and the same are hereby amended and reordained to read and provide as follows: Capital Projects Fund Appropriations , Other Construction 308.4310.0000.69065.300228 $7,206,250 Program Activities 308.4310.0000.52066.300228 93,750 Revenues Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP)— State Revenue 308.4310.0000.40122.300228 $7,300,000 5. Pursuant to Section 12 of the Charter of the City of Roanoke, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ,,,. ATTEST: - _/'--= ji, \ ` Celt/ City Clerk. _ 1 /- City Manager's Report 111M0=-1% Submitted by: Marc Nelson, Director Department of Economic Development ROA N O K E May 18, 2026 Title: Acceptance and Appropriation of the Virginia Business Ready Sites Program Grant for Site Development of Tract 8. Background: In August 2024, the City of Roanoke (City) received a grant totaling $7,500,000 from the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP)to elevate Tract 8 at the Roanoke Centre for Industry & Technology (RCIT) from a Tier III to a Tier V site. VEDP is issuing these funds in two phases with two separate performance agreements for Tier IV and Tier V, respectively. This report addresses Phase II to elevate Tract 8 to a Tier V site, with an award of $7,300,000. The city plans to use these funds to bid and procure a contractor to perform a mass grading of the site to make the site "shovel ready." Phase I work provided engineering site design work to prepare for Phase II mass grading. On April 10, 2026, the city received from VEDP a draft performance agreement outlining the terms and conditions for the city to accept the funds, which has been reviewed by both parties. Considerations: City Council action is required to accept the VBRSP grant award. As required by VBRSP, the city provided matching funds totaling $2,500,000 in support of the application for both Phase and Phase II. Recommended Action: Adopt the attached resolution to accept the awarded grant funding and the attached budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the grant fund of$7,300,000 from VEDP and authorize the City Manager,or designee, to execute any required grant agreements or documents. Such documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. Valmarie Turner, City Manager VIRGINIA BUSINESS READY SITE PROGRAM GRANT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT This PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT(the"Agreement") is made and entered into this 24th day of April, 2026, by and among the CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA ("the Grantee"), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia ("the Commonwealth"), and the VIRGINIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP AUTHORITY ("VEDP"), a political subdivision of the Commonwealth, (together with the Grantee, "the Parties"). 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this Agreement,the following terms shall have the following defmitions: "Grant" means a grant awarded from the Virginia Business Ready Sites Fund, established pursuant to § 2.2-2240.2:1 of the Code of Virginia. "Performance Date"means November 20,2027. "Phase I"means the portion of the Project encompassed by the Virginia Business Ready Site Program Grant Performance Agreement made and entered into by the Parties on August 5,2024. "Project"means the Site work for which the Grant was awarded. "RFP"means a request for proposal issued pursuant to the Virginia Public Procurement Act(§2.2-4300 et seq. of the Code of Virginia). "Rollover Funds"means any unused portion of Phase I of the Grant carried over for use as part of Phase II of the Grant, as a result of the Grantee's actual expenses for Phase I being less than the$200,000 allocated to Phase I of the Grant. "Scope of Work"means the scope of work,project timeline, and project budget summarized, collectively, in Exhibit A. "Site"means Tract 8 of the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology located on Blue Hills Circle in Roanoke,Virginia. "Tier Level"means a site's designated VBRSP level of readiness for marketing and economic development purposes. "VBRSP" means the Virginia Business Ready Sites Program ("VBRSP"), established pursuant to § 2.2- 2240.2:1 of the Code of Virginia. 2. Award of Grant. The Grantee has been awarded a Grant of and expects to receive a total of$7,500,000 through VEDP for the purpose of design and construction at the Site. The Grant will be awarded in two phases as described in the Scope of Work, with $200,000 awarded in Phase I for Site design and permitting, and $7,300,000 awarded in Phase II for Site construction. This Performance Agreement solely governs Phase II of the Grant related to construction at the Site. The amount of funds available for Phase II purposes shall be$7,300,000 plus the amount of Rollover Funds, if any("The Total Available Funds"). The Phase I Performance Agreement governed and controlled Phase I 1 of the Grant.In no event shall the total aggregate amount of Grant payments made to the Grantee,including Phase I,Phase II, and any Rollover Funds,exceed$7,500,000. Phase II of The Grant is awarded in accordance with the VBRSP,and receipt of the Grant is subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. The proceeds of Phase II of the Grant shall be used to reimburse the Grantee for necessary and reasonable costs expended in connection with the Phase II Scope of Work, and shall not be used for any other purposes. 3. Local Match. As a condition of receipt of the Grant,the Grantee shall be required to provide a local match at least equal to 25 percent of the amount of the Grant disbursed. The local match may, at VEDP's discretion,be met with prior expenditures by the Grantee for the site within the last five(5)years. Such match shall be paid towards the costs of the Scope of Work on or before the Performance Date.Additionally,the Grantee shall be responsible for any costs necessary to complete the Scope of Work not covered by the proceeds of the Grant,any costs incurred due to changes not approved pursuant to Section 4 of this Agreement,and any costs associated with the reporting required by this Agreement. 4. Scope of Work. The Phase I and Phase II Scope of Work is expected to advance the Site's Tier Level from a Tier 3 to a Tier 5. Only expenditures set forth in the Phase II Scope of Work shall be considered eligible expenses that may be reimbursed by VEDP from the Grant. The Grantee shall notify VEDP immediately if it determines that there will likely be changes to the Scope of Work. The Grantee shall submit proposed changes to the Scope of Work using the form in Exhibit B. The Scope of Work shall only be amended upon agreement of both parties, in writing,prior to the commencement of the work related to the change. Grant Funds shall not be used to reimburse the Grantee for any work commenced prior to an approved change in the Scope of Work. All agreed upon changes to the Scope of Work shall be incorporated into this Agreement and shall be subject to all terms and conditions set forth herein. The total amount of the Grant awarded to the Grantee shall not be subject to amendment.However,the Grantee shall notify VEDP immediately if it reasonably determines that cost increases will prohibit the completion of the agreed upon Scope of Work. 5. Control of Site If the Site subject to the Project is privately owned or otherwise not under the ownership and control of the Grantee,the Grantee shall provide evidence to VEDP prior to the start of work that the Grantee has obtained the necessary property interest in the land on which the Scope of Work is to be performed. If failure to provide such evidence results in a delay of the start of Work, the Grantee shall have no claim for compensation or additional damages on account of such delay,but shall be entitled to request an extension of the Performance Date as set forth in Section 7. 6. Progress Meetings. (a) The Grantee and VEDP shall meet monthly throughout the Project to discuss Project progress. The first such meeting shall be held no later than June 1,2026. The agendas for such meetings shall include discussions of the work accomplished since the previous progress meeting,the detailed look-ahead schedule of work planned through the next progress meeting, the overall 2 Scope of Work,potential delays or impediments to the completion of the Project by the Performance Date, applications for progress payments, any questions raised by either Party, and any other issues deemed relevant or necessary by the Parties. Such meetings may be held at the request of the Grantee or VEDP. (b) In lieu of a progress meeting,VEDP may instead request a progress report. Exhibit D should be submitted as the progress report. (c) VEDP may,in its discretion,require additional meetings or reports as needed throughout the performance period to facilitate the completion of the Scope of Work, or waive any required meeting or report. 7. Time of Completion. The Parties agree that time is of the essence in completing the Scope of Work,and the Grantee shall be responsible for completing the Scope of Work on or before the Performance Date. The Performance Date contemplates ordinary delays for construction work,and such ordinary delays shall not relieve the Grantee from the obligation to complete the Scope of Work by the Performance Date.For extraordinary delays, aside from events of force majeure as set forth in Section 19 of this agreement,the Grantee shall submit in writing to VEDP a request for an extension of time of the Performance Date utilizing the Change Order Form(Attachment B).Any such request shall set forth the particulars of the cause and details of the delay,and include documentation supporting the request.If VEDP determines that the request is reasonable,it may,in writing,grant an extension of the Performance Date set forth in this Agreement. 8. Performance. This agreement does not alter any obligations under the Virginia Public Procurement Act as set forth in Chapter 43 of Title 2.2(§ 2.2-4300 et seq.) of the Code of Virginia. The Grantee is ultimately responsible for selecting responsive,qualified bidders to complete the Scope of Work; however,the Grantee shall not issue an RFP until VEDP has reviewed and approved such RFP to ensure alignment with the Scope of Work and shall provide VEDP with the completed RFP prior to entering into a performance agreement. If the Grantee has already successfiilly bid the project subject to the Scope of Work prior to the award of the Grant, and such bid was conducted in accordance with any obligations under the Virginia Public Procurement Act,the Grantee shall require the suppliers selected for the work to provide a list of at least three references on projects with similar scope and complexity within the last 10 years or currently in progress for which the supplier was a contractor.For each reference,the supplier shall briefly identify(i) the project name,location,and services provided, (ii)original and fmal period of performance,(iii) original and final contract amount,(iv)the reason for any major change orders, (v) staffing level,and(vi) supplier's role(i.e.prime contractor,subcontractor, supplier, and any other partners) and any other major suppliers(i.e.prime contractor, subcontractor,supplier and any other partners). Responsive contractors selected to complete the work set forth in the Scope of Work shall be licensed and bonded and shall have performed three projects over the last ten years of similar size and complexity. The Grantee shall require any responsive bidder to the RFP to supply to the Grantee,upon request,the details of such projects,including scope of work,location,period of performance and contract amount,as well as references for such projects. 3 9. Access to Site. Representatives of VEDP shall have access to the Site at reasonable times for their observation, inspection, and testing for purposes of administering the Grant. The Grantee shall provide proper and safe conditions for such access. 10. Inspections. If the Scope of Work, or any relevant federal, state, or local laws,regulations, or ordinances requires a permit to be applied for and obtained for any portion of the work,the Grantee assumes responsibility for submitting the application for the permit in a timely and thorough manner.All permit applications for federal and state permits shall be reviewed by a third-party reviewer prior to submission. If the Scope of Work, or any relevant federal, state, or local laws,regulations, or ordinances,requires any part of the work to be inspected,tested, or approved,the Grantee shall assume full responsibility for arranging for and obtaining such inspections,tests, or approvals,and shall furnish VEDP with certificates of completed inspections,tests, or approvals. The Grantee shall provide VEDP with at least three-days' notice of the planned schedule for all inspections,tests,and approvals,unless circumstances reasonably require less than three-days' notice.In accordance with Section 9,VEDP shall be granted access to the Site to observe inspections,tests, and approvals. 11. Progress Payments and Reports. (a) The Grantee shall submit monthly requests for reimbursement,using the form attached as Exhibit C, beginning with the request due no later than June 30,2026. Subsequent requests shall be due on the first day of the subsequent month, as applicable,for the duration of the project until the final request for reimbursement is submitted pursuant to Section 15.Each request shall be for no less than $100,000,unless a smaller amount is authorized in writing by VEDP (this provision shall not apply to the final payment,which may be less than$100,000). When requesting funds for reimbursement the Grantee shall provide Exhibit C,Exhibit D or E,match documentation, original receipts or invoices with sufficient detail as to allow VEDP to identify goods and services for which reimbursement is requested based upon the Scope of Work, and proof of payment. VEDP may request any additional documentation reasonably necessary to authorize reimbursement. (b) The Grantee shall submit a progress report along with each request for a progress payment submitted pursuant to subsection(a)using the form attached as Exhibit D. The report shall outline progress to- date and progress towards milestones set forth in the Scope of Work, and shall include photographs of the progress at the Site, copies of any inspections completed since the previous progress report,proof that suppliers were paid, and copies of contractor invoices. If the Grantee does not have any expenses to request reimbursement for at the time that such a request is due pursuant to subsection(a),the Grantee shall still be required to submit a progress report at such time,and shall explain in the report why there are no expenses reported for the prior month or quarter. (c) If payment is requested for materials and equipment not incorporated into the work completed to date, but delivered and suitably stored at the Project site or at another location agreed to by the Grantee and a contractor in writing,the request for reimbursement shall be accompanied by a bill of sale,invoice, or other documentation warranting that the Grantee has received the materials and equipment free and clear of all liens. In receiving such materials,the Grantee shall ensure that the materials and equipment are covered by appropriate property insurance. 4 (d) Within 10 business days of receipt of a request for disbursement,VEDP shall indicate in writing the acceptance of the application and state that the request is being processed for payment, or return the request to the Grantee indicating, in writing,the reasons that the request is being rejected. If the request is deemed acceptable,VEDP shall submit approved reimbursements for payment within 30 days of receipt of the request. (e) VEDP may reject a request for reimbursement for failure to provide substantive documentation for the requested reimbursement, or may refuse to make the entire reimbursement, or a portion thereof,to the extent that VEDP is made aware that construction has been found to be defective, or completed construction has been damaged and requires correction or replacement.VEDP shall promptly pay the amount of reimbursement withheld when Grantee remedies the situation that required the withholding. (f) VEDP may withhold up to five percent from each application for payment as retainage. Such amount shall be included in the fmal reimbursement,pursuant to Section 15, after completion of the Scope of Work. (g) VEDP shall withhold payments for expenses related to the preparation and submission of any required permitting,licensing, or similar applications until the entity receiving such an application deems it complete.After an application is deemed to be complete,VEDP may,in its sole discretion, elect to withhold all or a portion of the reimbursement due for such application,until such time as the permit, license, or other approval is granted. 12. Substantial Completion. When the Grantee considers the Project complete,the Grantee shall notify VEDP in writing that the work is substantially complete, except for any items specifically noted by Grantee to be incomplete, and shall request that VEDP issue a certificate of substantial completion.Promptly thereafter,VEDP and the Grantee shall inspect the work to determine the status of completion.If VEDP does not consider the work to be substantially complete, it shall notify the Grantee in writing,providing the reasons for the determination.If VEDP considers the work to be substantially complete,it shall issue a certificate of substantial completion,which shall fix the date of substantial completion, and shall provide,in writing, a list of items to be completed or corrected before fmal payment will be issued. 13. Final Inspection. Upon written notice from the Grantee that the Scope of Work is complete, including the correction or completion of any items noted with the certificate of substantial completion issued pursuant to Section 12, VEDP shall make a visual inspection of the site.VEDP shall notify the Grantee of any issues revealed by the visual inspection to be incomplete or defective. Such visual inspection shall not replace any federal, state,or locally-mandated inspections. 14. Final Performance Report. Within 60 days after the Performance Date, or the date of the completion of the Scope of Work if prior to the Performance Date,the Grantee shall submit a Final Performance Report,using the form attached as Exhibit E. The Final Performance Report shall include the following information: 5 i. A summary of the work accomplished through the expenditure of the proceeds of the Grant; ii. A summary of any changes to the Scope of Work approved during the performance period,with an explanation of each such change; iii. If applicable, documentation confirming that the costs of the Scope of Work were less than anticipated,with an indication of the amount of the Grant proceeds not to be disbursed; iv. Documentation identifying and confirming that the required local cash match has been provided in full, or,if such match has not been provided in full,the reduction of the amount of the Grant necessary to achieve the required local cash match; v. Copies of all analyses,reports, and inspections related to the Scope of Work; vi. A letter from a licensed engineer or equivalent who has inspected the Site after completion of the Scope of Work indicating that the Site's Tier Level has increased, or,if it did not increase, establishing that it has advanced towards the next Tier Level and indicating what steps would be necessary to advance to such Tier Level; and vii. Plans for marketing the Site and a description of any new interest in the Site from prospective economic development projects. 15. Final Reimbursement. After the Grantee has completed all'corrections to the satisfaction of VEDP and delivered all required final report documentation,the Grantee may make application for final payment following the procedure for progress payments. The total aggregate amount of payments made to the Grantee shall not exceed the Total Available Funds. If the total amount expended by the Grantee that is eligible for reimbursement is less than the Total Available Funds,the Grantee shall only be entitled to payment equal to its actual expenses. If VEDP is satisfied that the Grantee has completed the Scope of Work and all other obligations under this Agreement have been fulfilled,VEDP shall,within 10 days of receipt of the final application for payment or the Final Performance Report,whichever is later,provide notice to the Grantee that the work is acceptable and shall submit approved reimbursements for payment within 30 days of receipt of the request. Otherwise,VEDP shall indicate in writing the reasons for refusing to process the final grant payment,in which case the Grantee shall make the necessary corrections and resubmit the application. The final payment due under this Agreement shall not be made unless and until such Performance Report is submitted in a timely manner. 16. Grantee Adjustments and Repayment. The Grantee shall make any repayment due under this Section within 60 days of receipt of written notice from VEDP that repayment is due. Repayment shall be required under any of the following circumstances: (a) If the Final Report indicates, or evidence reveals,that the local match actually provided is less than the required level of local match as set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement,the amount of the Grant shall be reduced by the amount necessary for the actual local match to reach the required level.If the Grant was previously disbursed,the Grantee shall repay to VEDP the amount necessary to make the local cash match actually provided equal the required level of the local match. (b) If VEDP reasonably determines that the Grantee is unable or unwilling to complete the Scope of Work by the Performance Date,VEDP may terminate this Agreement by delivering written notice of 6 termination to the Grantee,and in such case the Grantee may, at the discretion of VEDP,be required to repay all or a portion of the Grant proceeds disbursed. (c) If the Grantee does not comply with the provisions of Section 8 relating to bidding the project, selecting contractors, or meeting obligations under the Virginia Public Procurement Act,VEDP may terminate this Agreement by delivering written notice of termination to the Grantee,and in such case the Grantee may,at the discretion of VEDP,be required to repay all or a portion of the Grant proceeds disbursed. (d) If the locality in which the Site is located rezones the Site or otherwise makes local land use actions such that the Site may not be used for an industrial or manufacturing purpose, or if the locality allows the site to be used for a sector other than a sector classified pursuant to the North American Industry Classification System as Codes 31-33 (but excluding 3122, 313,315, 316, 321,322, 323, and 324), 5132, 54, 55, or 56,the Grantee shall repay a portion of the Grant proceeds as follows: Within one year of the Performance Date, 100%of the Grant; Within two years of the Performance Date, 90%of the Grant; Within three years of the Performance Date, 80%of the Grant; Within four years of the Performance Date,70%of the Grant; Within five years of the Performance Date, 60%of the Grant; Within six years of the Performance Date, 50%of the Grant; Within seven years of the Performance Date,40%of the Grant; Within eight years of the Performance Date, 30%of the Grant; Within nine years of the Performance Date,20%of the Grant; Within 10 years of the Performance Date, 10%of the Grant. In its discretion,VEDP may waive such repayment obligation under this subsection(d). 17. Termination of Agreement. VEDP may terminate this agreement for cause. Cause will be justified if the Grantee fails to perform the work in accordance with the Scope of Work, including failure to ensure sufficient skilled workers, fails to abide by industry standards, fails to obtain suitable materials or equipment,fails to comply with the provisions of Section 8 and Section 16(c), or fails to adhere to the progress schedule established under the Scope of Work(as it may be amended pursuant to this agreement). VEDP shall notify the Grantee in writing of the intent to terminate. The Agreement shall not be terminated if the Grantee sends written notice to VEDP within seven days of receipt of the intent to terminate, and begins,within those seven days,to correct its failure to perform and proceeds diligently to cure such failure within 30 days of receipt of the notice of intent to terminate.If the Agreement is terminated under this Section 17,the Grantee shall not be entitled to receive any further payment, and may be required to repay pursuant to Section 16(b) of this Agreement any Grant amounts previously received. 7 18. Stop Work/Condemnation. If,through no act or fault of the Grantee,progress towards completion of the Scope of Work is suspended for a period of more than 90 days by VEDP or under an order of a court or other local, state, or federal legal authority,this Agreement may be terminated upon written agreement of the Parties.If the Agreement is terminated pursuant to this section,the Grantee shall be entitled to receive Grant payments equal to the costs incurred by the locality pursuant to the Scope of Work as of the day of the termination. 19. Force Majeure Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Agreement,if the Grantee does not complete work on the Project by the Performance Date or take any action required under this Agreement because of an"Event of Force Majeure"(as defined below),the time for completing the work or taking such action will be extended day-for-day by the delay in completing the work or taking such action caused by the Event of Force Majeure. "Event of Force Majeure" means without limitation, any of the following: acts of God; strikes, lockouts or other industrial disturbances; act of public enemies; orders of any kind of the government of the United States of America or of the Commonwealth or any of their respective departments, agencies, political subdivisions or officials, or any civil or military authority; insurrections; riots; epidemics; pandemics; landslides; lightning; earthquakes; fires; hurricanes; tornadoes; storms; floods; washouts; droughts; arrests;restraint of government and people; civil disturbances; explosions; breakage or accident to machinery,transmission pipes or canals not caused by the Grantee;partial or entire failure of utilities;or any other cause or event not reasonably within the control of the Grantee. 20. Notices. Formal notices and communications between the parties shall be given either by(i)personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, (iii)mailing utilizing a certified or first class mail postage prepaid service of the United States Postal Service that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or(iv) delivery by electronic mail (email) with transmittal confirmation and confirmation of delivery, addressed as noted below. Notices and communications personally delivered or delivered by document delivery service shall be deemed effective upon receipt. Notices and communications mailed shall be deemed effective on the second business day following deposit in the United States mail. Notices and communications delivered by email shall be deemed effective the next business day, not less than 24 hours, following the date of transmittal and confirmation of delivery to the intended recipient. Such written notices and communications shall be addressed to: if to the Grantee,to: with a copy to: City of Roanoke,Virginia Address: 117 Church Ave Sw. Roanoke,VA 24011 Email: alicia.cundiff@roanokeva.gov Attention:Alicia Cundiff,Director,Economic Development Specialist 8 if to VEDP,to: with a copy to: Virginia Economic Development Partnership Virginia Economic Development Partnership One James Center, Suite 900 One James Center, Suite 900 901 East Cary Street 901 East Cary Street Richmond,Virginia 23219 Richmond,Virginia 23219 Email: mdreiling@vedp.org Email: generalcounsel@vedp.org Attention: Michael Dreiling,Vice President, Attention: General Counsel Real Estate Solutions Each party may change the address for service of notice upon it by a notice in writing to the other parties hereto. 21. VEDP Not Responsible for Infrastructure Improvement. The Grantee acknowledges and agrees that VEDP bears no responsibility for work performed related to the Scope of Work or other improvements to the Site.All such work performed shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee. VEDP shall not be liable to any contractor, subcontractor, supplier,laborer, architect, engineer,tenant,or other party for services performed or materials supplied in connection with any such work performed related to the Scope of Work or other improvements to the Site.VEDP shall not be liable for any debts or claims accruing in favor of any such parties against the Grantee or others or against any improvements made on the Site. VEDP shall not be an agent of the Grantee for any purposes and the Grantee shall not be deemed partners or joint venturers with VEDP.VEDP shall not be deemed to be in privity of contract with any contractor or provider of services related to the Scope of Work or other improvements to the Site.VEDP shall have no liability,obligation, or responsibility whatsoever for work performed related to the Scope of Work or other improvements to the Site. Any inspections of the site improvements made by or through VEDP are solely for purposes of administration of the Grant,and neither the Grantee nor any third party is entitled to rely upon the same with respect to the quality,adequacy, or suitability of materials or worlananship,conformity with the plans and specifications,state of completion,or otherwise. 22. Miscellaneous. (a) This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties hereto as to the Grant and may not be amended or modified,except in writing, signed by each of the parties hereto. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. The Grantee may not assign its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of VEDP. (b) This Agreement is made,and is intended to be performed,in the Commonwealth and shall be construed and enforced by the laws of the Commonwealth. Jurisdiction and venue for any litigation arising out 9 of or involving this Agreement shall lie in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond,and such litigation shall be brought only in such court. (c) This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which together shall be one and the same instrument. (d) If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be unenforceable, invalid or illegal, then the enforceability, validity and legality of the remaining provisions will not in any way be affected or impaired,and such provision will be deemed to be restated to reflect the original intentions of the parties as nearly as possible in accordance with applicable law. (e) Attorney's fees shall be paid by the party incurring such fees. [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Performance Agreement as of the date first written above. CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA By Name: Title: Date: VIRGINIA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP AUTHORITY By • Name: Title: Date: Exhibit A: Scope of Work Exhibit B: Change Order Form Exhibit C: Remittance Document Exhibit D: Progress Report Exhibit E: Final Performance Report 11 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK Roanoke City was granted$7,500,000.00 during the FY 2025 round of Virginia Business Ready Sites Program. The City of Roanoke will utilize VBRSP funding to complete mass grading engineering and construction services for the physical improvements at the Tract 8 located in Roanoke Centre for industry and Technology (RCIT), located near 1830 Blue Hills Drive Circle, Roanoke,Virginia 24012. The purpose of the design and construction services is to complete a 33-acre site ready building pad that would include an access road and site clearing/grading at RCIT. After completion, this will be considered a Tier 5 status at completion of project as indicated in the Virginia Business Ready Site (VBRSP)program. Budget Matching Source 1 Grant Name: Expenditure Description Funding Roanoke' Total Request Source Type: Cash Phase H Geoteclmical Construction Support $93,750 $31,250 $125,000 Finish Access Road&Land $2,175,000 $725,000 $2,900,000 Clearin• for Pad Finish Pad Site $5,031,250 $1,684,250 $6,715,500 Totals $7,300,000 $2,440,500 $9,740,500 Deadlines The following Schedule lists the target dates and performance milestones for the preparation and delivery of the Scope of Work. Performance Milestone (Due Diligence) Target Delivery Date Signed Performance Agreement May 22, 2026 Invitation to Bid Posted June 5, 2026 Invitation to Bid Review July 14, 2026 Bid Award August 14,2026 Project Start September 14,2026 Interim Deliverable: December 14,2026 Clearing Complete Interim Deliverable: August 14, 2027 Grading Complete Final Completion: October 16, 2027 Stabilization Financial Closeout(Performance Date) November 20, 2027 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA The 18th day of May 2026. No. 43393-051826. AN ORDINANCE accepting a donation of real property identified as being beneficial for floodplain management and environment preservation purposes from Ms. Shirley Phillips; authorizing City staff to execute appropriate acquisition documents for such real property interests; and dispensing with the second reading of this Ordinance by title. WHEREAS, Ms. Phillips is the owner of two parcels of real property near the intersection of Hollins Road and Old Mountain Road,located at 0 Hollins Road,N.E.,bearing official Tax Map Nos. 3140815 and 3140819. WHEREAS, Ms. Phillips, being the owner of the property, desires to gift, donate, and convey such properties to the City to support efforts to manage flood-prone areas, protect natural resources, and maintain continuity with other City-owned land in the immediate vicinity. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. City Council hereby accepts the gift and donation of real properties located at 0 Hollins Road, N.E., Roanoke, Virginia, bearing Roanoke Official Tax Map Nos. 3140815 and 3140819, in fee simple from Ms. Shirley Phillips, to be used to support efforts to manage flood- prone areas, protect natural resources, and maintain continuity with other City-owned land in the immediate vicinity, as further set forth in the City Manager's Report dated May 18, 2026. 2. The proper City officials and City staff are hereby authorized to execute any and all necessary documents to acquire and accept the gift and donation of the aforementioned parcels. All requisite documents shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney. 3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this Ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: C.t 2 t- City Clerk. City Manager's Report Submitted by: Marc Nelson, Director Department of Economic Development ROAN O K E May 18, 2026 Title: Acceptance of a Donation of Privately Owned Parcels, Official Tax Map Nos. 3140815 and 3140819, located at 0 Hollins Road, N.E. Background: Ms. Shirley Phillips (Owner) owns certain parcels of real property identified as Roanoke Official Tax Map Nos. 3140815 and 3140819 (collectively, the "Properties"), located at 0 Hollins Road, N.E. The Owner requested to donate the Properties to the City of Roanoke (city). The Properties are located near the intersection of Hollins Road and Old Mountain Road. The city owns an adjacent parcel (Tax Map No. 3140816), as well as a parcel located across the Old Mountain Road Bridge (Tax Map No. 3140808). City staff circulated the Properties to various departments. including Transportation, Stormwater, and Engineering, to determine potential interest. Because these parcels are immediately adjacent to an active creek. the Stormwater Division subsequently expressed interest in acquiring the Properties to ensure they are maintained properly. Considerations: The Properties have a combined tax assessment of approximately $6,300. The donation of the Properties will be at no cost to the city, other than incidental costs associated with the transfer, including title work, recording fees, and other due diligence expenses. Stormwater staff have identified the properties as beneficial for floodplain management and environmental preservation purposes. The parcels are located within the floodplain and partially within the flood way, making them suitable for preservation and stormwater-related use. Acquisition of the properties will support the city's ongoing efforts to manage flood-prone areas, protect natural resources. and maintain continuity with other city-owned land in the immediate vicinity. Recommended Action: Adopt the attached ordinance authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to accept the donation of Roanoke Official Tax Map Nos. 3140815 and 3140819 from Ms. Phillips, and to execute any necessary agreements and documents to complete the transfer of the Properties to the City of Roanoke. All documents are subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Valmarie Turner, City Manager 0 Hollins Road, NE Proposed Parcel Donations O(,e ti, / � � ' P, ", .. 'N.( Is's* ' -, '''''. .*'. • if\\\ „ ilk >,,,,,, .b).\') \ , :1; A. . \. '',*10,'''.:-.7.1:'':''''',1:.'' . 911‘'.f,'„,„ ;., \ "� . ,gyp +F i44 t. f O`,� mpg £ A� ., , \ y`: .... 4 .„ . „., +. 4. �. ti +t a t f ... ' ''''*- -7' ,, i'''' r - :.:' ii: ' :4( -,,,A, Jr Of \ . - . . ., ,... , a. y` , irk 00, April 28, 2026 1:1,066 o 0.01 0.01 0.02 mi I ' ' ' ' 'I t y ' , t , 1 0 0.01 0.02 0.04 km City of Roanoke IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 18th day of May 2026. No. 43394-051826. AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding for the fiscal year 2024-2025 and the fiscal year 2025—2026 Capital Improvement Plan Debt-Funded Projects, amending and re-ordaining certain sections of the FY25-26 Stormwater Utility, Civic Facilities,Capital Projects, and Schools Capital Projects funds appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following sections of the FY25-26 Stormwater Utility, Civic Facilities, Capital Projects, and Schools Capital Projects funds appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and re-ordained to read and provide as follows: Stormwater Fund Appropriations: Stormwater Improvements 503-3010-0000-69065-300034 $ 4,214,500 Glade Creek-Kermit- Clyde- 503-3010-0000-69065-300019 844,000 Dunkirk Downtown Jefferson St 2 Drainage 503-3010-0000-69065-300012 402,000 Improvements (Elm to Luck) Ore Branch at Franklin Rd. Stream 503-3010-0000-69065-300026 230,000 Restoration Downtown—Rorer Ave Drainage 503-3010-0000-69065-300225 115,000 Improvements 2034 Indian Village Lane— 503-3010-0000-69065-300260 100,000 Acquisition, Abatement, Demolition Ore Branch Phase II—Acquisition, 503-3010-0000-69065-300259 75,000 Demolition, Floodplain Restoration Campbell Avenue II Drainage 503-3010-0000-69065-300226 12,000 Improvements Jefferson Tunnel Drainage 503-3010-0000-69065-300235 7,500 Improvements . Revenue: Gen Obligation Bond Proceeds 503-3010-0000-41042-00000 $ 6,000,000 Civic Facilities Fund Appropriations Roof Replacement- BPAT $ 1,500,000 505-2108-0000-69065-300053 Revenue Gen Obligation Bond Proceeds 505-2108-0000-41042-000003 $ 1,500,000 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations Wasena Bridge 308-4310-0000-69065-300166 $ 9,650,000 Vehicle Purchases 308-2642-0000-69010-300265 5,220,500 RCIT Tract 8 308-4310-0000-69065-300228 2,500,000 Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk 308-4310-0000-69065-300267 2,000,000 Passenger Rail Station 308-4310-0000-69065-300173 1,865,000 Capital Street Paving 308-4110-0000-69065-300266 1,000,000 E-911 Center Building Purchase 308-4130-0000-50851-300230 797,500 Traffic Signal Modernization 308-4110-0000-69065-300187 750,000 Washington Park Site Amenities 308-7124-0000-69065-300223 750,000 Fire Drill Tower 308-3211-0000-69065-300232 720,000 RVRRS —Antenna Replacements 308-1601-0000-69065-350003 625,000 Streetscape Improvements 308-1601-0000-69065-300184 500,000 Sidewalk Maintenance 308-4110-0000-69065-370004 500,000 Global Payroll 308-1601-0000-69065-300095 500,000 Adult Detention Center Maintenance 308-4330-0000-69065-300268 250,000 Revenue Gen Obligation Bond Proceeds 308-1234-0000-41042-000000 $ 27,628,000 Schools Capital Projects Fund Expenditures Preston Park 331-6000-0000-69065-300212 $ 10,000,000 Revenue Gen Obligation Bond Proceeds 308-1234-0000-41142-000000 $ 10,000,000 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: ti� ' 4 � City Clerk. City Manager's Report Pr ' Submitted by: Acquenatta Jackson-Harris, Deputy Director Department of Finance ROAN O K E May 18, 2026 Title: Appropriation of Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Capital Improvement Plan debt- funded projects. Background: On November 13, 2025, the city closed on the sale of the 2025A bonds which provided funding for FY25-26 Capital Improvement program projects. Below are categories and details of: • School Facility Maintenance and Improvements - $10,000,000 - Funding provides for new school construction to replace Preston Park Elementary. • Bridge Renovation - $9,650,000 - Funding provides for the ongoing construction of Wasena Bridge. • Parks_and Recreation Master Plan - $750,000 - Funding provides for Washington Park Pool amenities. • Berglund Center Improvements - $1,500,000 - Funding provides for Berglund Performing Arts Theatre (BPAT) roof replacement. • Stormwater Management- $6,000,000 - Funding provides for initial projects to reduce flooding in downtown, neighborhood drainage projects, continued acquisition of flood prone properties and conversion back to flood plain water quality/stream restorations and various flood mitigation and small construction projects. • Curb, Gutter and Sidewalk Program - $2,500,000 - Funding provides for prioritized curb, gutter and sidewalk projects. • Streetscape Improvements- $2,250,000 - Funding provides for prioritized street scape projects. • Fleet Capital Replacements -$5,220,500 - Funding provides for a Fire Ladder truck, Hazmat trucks/trailer, Ambulances, and Police and Sheriff vehicles. • Technology Capital - $1,125,000 - Funding for the ERP Financial System, Global HR Migration, and Global Payroll. • Capital Building Maintenance— $6,132,500 - Funding for Fire Drill Tower, Passenger Rail Station, Adult Detention Center Maintenance, RCIT Tract 8 and E-911 Center. Considerations: City Council authorization is required for appropriation of bonds to provide funding for the projects listed below: Public Schools $ 10,000,000 Bridge Renovation 9,650,000 Parks and Recreation Master Plan 750,000 Berglund Center Improvements 1,500,000 Stormwater Management 6,000,000 Curbs, Gutter and Sidewalk Program 2,500,000 Streetscape Improvements 2,250,000 Fleet Capital Replacements 5,220,500 Technology Capital 1,125,000 Capital Building Maintenance 6,132,500 Total $45,128,000 Recommended Action: Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to reflect the Sale of Series 2025A bond. Valmarie Turner, City Manager IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 18th day of May 2026. No. 43395-051826. A RESOLUTION ratifying, approving, and affirming the action taken by the Greater Roanoke Transit Company (GRTC) d/b/a Valley Metro to implement Fare Free Election Day Bus Service for Tuesday, April 21, 2026; Tuesday, August 4, 2026; and Tuesday, November 3, 2026; and authorizing the City Manager to take any necessary action to accomplish such fare. WHEREAS, on March 16, 2026, the GRTC Board of Directors moved, seconded, and approved Fare Free Election Day Service for Tuesday, April 21, 2026; Tuesday, August 4, 2026; and on Tuesday,November 3, 2026; and WHEREAS, GRTC has requested that City Council ratify, approve, and affirm such fare pursuant to Section 34-22(a) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. City Council hereby ratifies, approves, and affirms Fare Free Election Day Bus Service for Tuesday, April 21, 2026; Tuesday, August 4, 2026; and Tuesday, November 3, 2026, as adopted by the GRTC Board of Directors on March 18, 2026. 2. The Fare Free Election Day Bus Service shall be effective on Tuesday, April 21, 2026; Tuesday, August 4, 2026; and Tuesday, November 3, 2026, and shall be fare free for those citizens looking to access their local polling location in order to cast their ballot. 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to take any necessary action to accomplish such fare. 4. The City Clerk is directed to certify a copy of this Resolution to,the-General Manager of GRTC. _ ATTEST: City Clerk '�� N_- -' i CITY OF ROAOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Room 456 ; !� Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 _, ! Telephone: (540)853-2541 -— Fax: (540)853-1145 E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov CECELIA F.MCCOY,CMC CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk RUTH VISUETE PEREZ,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk May 19, 2026 Donna Littlepage 2149 Deyerle Road SW Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Ms. Littlepage: At the City Council meeting on Monday, May 18, 2026, you were appointed to serve on the Roanoke City School Board. Your three-year term will commence on July 1, 2026, and end on June 30, 2029. I am enclosing a copy of Resolution No. 43396-051826. Your Oath of Office has been forwarded to Kim Tresky, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board, for appropriate handling prior to commencement of your term of office. A copy of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act is being sent to you by email; as required by state law. Board members are required to read and become familiar with this information. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for your willingness to serve the City of Roanoke as a Trustee of the Roanoke City School Board. Sincerely, Cecelia F. McCoy, CMC City Clerk Enclosures pc: Kim Tresky, Board Clerk Valmarie Turner, City Manager Laura Carini, City Attorney Acquenatta Harris, Interim Director of Finance Suzanne Barnett, Payroll and Systems Supervisor , F y41 CITY OF ROANOKE , f -^s!" - , OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK. 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Room 456 ,.,- ,7,‘ 'J Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 ti r Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov CECELIA F.MCCOY,CMC CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk RUTH VISUETE PEREZ,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk May 19, 2026 Derek Kaknes 1726 Maiden Lane SW Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Dear Mr. Kaknes: At the City Council meeting on Monday, May 18, 2026, you were appointed to serve on the Roanoke City School Board. Your three-year term will commence on July 1, 2026, and end on June 30, 2029. I am enclosing a copy of Resolution No. 43396-051,826. Your Oath of Office has been forwarded to Kim Tresky, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board, for appropriate handling prior to commencement of your term.of office. A copy of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act is being sent to you by email, as required by state law. Board members are required to read and become familiar with this information. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for your willingness to serve the City of Roanoke as a Trustee of the Roanoke City School Board. Sincerely, - Cecelia F. McCoy, CMC City Clerk Enclosures pc: Kim Tresky, Board Clerk Valmarie Turner, City Manager Laura Carini, City Attorney Acquenatta Harris, Interim Director of Finance Suzanne Barnett, Payroll and Systems Supervisor IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 18th day of May 2026. No. 43396-051826. A RESOLUTION appointing Donna Littlepage and Derek Kaknes as School Board Trustees of the Roanoke City School Board for terms commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30,2029. WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 9-24,Code of the City of Roanoke(1979),as amended,and Section 22.1-29.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, a public hearing was held on April 20, 2026,relating to the appointment of School Board Trustees; and WHEREAS,this Council is desirous of appointing Donna Littlepage and Derek Kaknes to fill the vacancies on the Roanoke City School Board. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Donna Littlepage and Derek Kaknes are hereby appointed as School Board Trustees of the Roanoke City School Board for terms commencing July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2029. 2. The City Clerk is directed to transmit an attested copy of this resolution to the Clerk of Roanoke City School Board and to Donna Littlepage and Derek Kaknes. ATTEST: .„-y)14.- 7 City Clerk. • •��\ •A-s7 STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST, I, Stephen Terry McGuire, state that I have a personal interest in agenda Item 10, No. 2, relating to the appointment of two Trustees to the Roanoke City School Board, because I am an employee of Roanoke City Public Schools and as an employee, I have a personal interest in this transaction. Therefore, in accordance with Virginia Code Section 2.2-3112, I will refrain from participation in this matter. I ask that the Clerk accept this statement and ask that it be made a part of the minutes of this meeting. Witness the following signature made this 18th day of May 2026. /41:\Y . _ � ,.I (Seal) Stephen Verry McGui e, Vice- ayor STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST I, Vivian Sanchez-Jones, state that I have a personal interest in agenda Item 10, No. 2, relating to the appointment of two Trustees to the Roanoke City School Board, because I am an employee of Roanoke City Public Schools and as an employee, I have a personal interest in this transaction. Therefore, in accordance with Virginia Code Section 2.2-3112, I will refrain from participation in this matter. I ask that the Clerk accept this statement and ask that it be made a part of the minutes of this meeting. Witness the following signature made this 18th day of May 2026. (Seal) Vivian Sanc ez-Jones, R ke City Council ra . v 1Z '. ` '° CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ! , ' 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Suite 456 1 r` Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 y` IN3 Telephone:(540)853-2541 Fax.(540)853-1145 CECELIA F.MCCOY,CMC E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk RUTH VISUETE PEREZ,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk May 22, 2026 Douglas Devine 424 Walnut Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Dear Mr. Devine: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 43397-051826 to rezone certain property located at 1007 3 1/2 Street, SE, bearing Official Tax Map No. 4020920 (the "Property") from I-1, Light Industrial District, to UF, Urban Flex District, as set forth in the Zoning Amendment Amended Application No. 1 dated April 17, 2026. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, May 18, 2026, and is in full force and effect upon its passage. Sincerely, Cecelia F. McCoy, CMC City Clerk Enclosure pc: Fan Convenience LC, 909 4th Street, SE, Roanoke Virginia 24013 Burke Living Trust, do William P Burke, Jr — Trustee, 3017 Northridge Road, Hardy Virginia 24101 KNI Investments LLC, 315 Albemarle Avenue, SE, Box 3, Roanoke Virginia 24013 Norfolk Southern Railroad, Taxation Dept., 650 W. Peachtree Street, NW, Atlanta Georgia 30308 The Honorable Brenda Hamilton, Circuit Court Clerk Valmarie H. Turner, City Manager Angie O'Brien, Deputy City Manager Katharine Gray, Interim Director, Planning Building and Development Laura Carini, City Attorney Kelvin Bratton, Director of Real Estate Valuation Luke Pugh, City Engineer Emily Clark, Secretary, City Planning Commission IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA The 18th day of May 2026. No. 43397-051826. AN ORDINANCE to rezone certain property located at 1007 3 %2 Street, SE, bearing Official Tax Map No. 4020920 (the "Property") from I-1, Light Industrial District, to UF, Urban Flex District, and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. WHEREAS, Douglas Devine has made application to the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia ("City Council"), to have the Property rezoned from I-1, Light Industrial District, to UF, Urban Flex District; WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by §36.2-540, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after conducting a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to City Council; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by City Council on such application at its May 18, 2026 meeting, after due and timely notice thereof as required by §36.2-540, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid application, the recommendation made to City Council by the Planning Commission, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the matters presented at the public hearing, finds that the public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice, require the rezoning of the subject property, and for those reasons, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described property should be rezoned as herein provided. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. Section 36.2-100, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and the Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated December 5, 2005, as amended, be amended to reflect that the Property be and hereby is rezoned from I-1, Light Industrial District, to UF, Urban Flex District, as set forth in the Zoning Amendment Amended Application No. 1 dated April 17, 2026. 2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: // /, , City Clerk' J� - � ' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission Meeting: May 18, 2026 Subject: Application by Douglas Devine, to rezone the property from I-1 , Light Industrial District to UF, Urban Flex District. The proposed use is for a laundromat. Summary: By a vote of 5-0, with Chair Smith and Commissioner Martin absent, the Commission recommends approval of the zoning amendment request. The Amended Application No.1 is consistent with the general principles within the City's Comprehensive Plan, Belmont Fallon Neighborhood Plan, South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan, Downtown Plan, and Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance as the property will be developed and used in a manner that supports the goals and purposes of these plans and regulations. Application Information: Request: Rezone to Urban Flex Owner/Applicant: Douglas Devine City Staff Person: Colette Baumgardner, Project Planner Address: 1007 3 %2 Street SE (also known as 326 Albemarle Ave SE) Official Tax No: 4020920 Site Area: +/- 0.2359 acres Relevant Plans: Belmont Fallon Neighborhood Plan, South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan, Downtown Plan, and Brownfield Redevelopment Plan Proposed Land Use: Laundromat Future Land Use: Urban Flex Filing Date: Original Application: March 25, 2026 Amended Application No.1 : April 17, 2026 Public Notification and Outreach: • Cardinal News and Roanoke Rambler Legal Advertisement (runs twice) Required Public Notice - • Letters to Property owners abutting subject State of Virginia Code property (includes across street/alley) • Direct notice by mail includes neighboring localities if applicable Required Public Notice - • Posting a sign on the subject property with City of Roanoke Zoning hearing date and contact for additional Code information • Posting applications - applications received are posted on the PBD Board & Commission page, providing instant access to the full application and supporting documentation • CivicSend Notices - Email notification subscription to share information with citizens and stakeholders according to their preferences. Land Use Applications touch PBD Outreach Beyond the inbox of subscribers at least 2 times - State/City Code 1 ) Application filed; 2) Agenda and Staff Requirements Report Posting; 3) Amended Information, if applicable • Neighborhood Leaders and Civic Stakeholders Email Notice - Direct email to leaders to share information; coincides with CivicSend Notices • CivicSend Notices to stakeholders subscribed to notices from the Planning Commission and PBD calendar • All applicants are strongly advised to PBD Recommended discuss project with area neighborhood Applicant Outreach organizations and/or civic leagues and adjoining property owners and/or tenants Applicant Outreach • Unknown. Background: The property is currently developed as an approximately 2,500 sq ft, single story building at the intersection of 4" St SE and Albemarle Ave SE. The building 2 fronts onto a parking area accessed from 4" St SE and the rear of the building is along Albemarle Ave SE. The existing parking area has an entrance that extends along the entire 4th St SE frontage, and it does not conform to current design requirements for parking lot area entrances. Additionally, the building has nearly zero facade transparency from window or door openings on the Albemarle Ave SE or 4" St SE frontage. Facade transparency is not required in the I-1 , Light Industrial District, but it is in the UF, Urban Flex District at the rate of 15% of the primary frontage and 7.5% of the intersecting frontage. The property is included in multiple small area plans adopted by the City, including the Belmont Fallon Neighborhood Plan (2003), Brownfield Redevelopment Plan (2008), Downtown Plan (201 7), and South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan (adopted 2001 and amended in 2010 and 2024). The property is also included in the City's Comprehensive Plan with a future land use designation as Urban Flex. Generally, all of the adopted plans support the transition of the property and surrounding area from industrial to a commercial/high density residential use. Proposed Use/Development: The applicant is requesting a rezoning from I-1 , Light Industrial District, to UF, Urban Flex District, to facilitate the use of the property as a laundromat, as laundromat is not permitted in the I-1 , Light Industrial District. The applicant intends to reuse the existing building on site with significant interior renovations to the building. The applicant has discussed some site improvements and additions of windows in the rezoning amendment application, but the improvements are not proffered in the zoning amendment application. The property is located within the 100-year floodplain, and the magnitude of improvement proposed is considered to be a "substantial improvement" within the purview of the floodplain overlay district. This means that the building will need to be retrofitted to meet the floodplain requirements in the building and zoning code. Considerations: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses: The subject property is located in a low-lying area between the 1-581 to the west and residential uses to the east. This valley type area is located within the 100- year floodplain and has historically been used for light industrial uses. However, in recent years, the property and adjoining area has started transitioning from industrial to commercial uses. 3 Zoning District Land Use North I-1 : Light Industrial 1-581 roadway, personal service establishment, mixed light industrial uses including self- storage building South D: Downtown and I-1 : Light Multipurpose commercial Industrial building, retail, wholesale distribution East I-1 : Light Industrial with RM-1 : Vacant, Outdoor storage Residential beyond West I-1 : Light Industrial with D: Railroad, 1-581 , multi-tenant Downtown beyond commercial/industrial space The subject property is located just north of the historic Viriginia Can Company/S. H. Heironimus Warehouse. This property was rezoned to Downtown District in 2005, and it sets the stage for attractive, high-quality development in the area. Applicability/Appropriateness of Proposed Zoning District: The purpose of the OF District is to promote high intensity, mixed use development that is economically viable, pedestrian oriented, attractive and harmonious, and contributes to the place-making character of the City. The district is designed to provide new development and redevelopment opportunities in the form of mixed-use structures that offer a wide range of complementary land uses. This special purpose district is intended to be applied to underperforming urban industrial areas that have sufficient infrastructure to support mixed use development. The district provides for a mix of small-scale industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential uses. The City's Comprehensive Plan, City Plan 2040, designates this property and the surrounding area as Urban Flex as the future land use category. As this area transitions from industrial uses to more of a mixed-use environment, this land use and zoning district are appropriate. The proposed repurposing of the building would align with the overall intent of the district to provide a mix of small scale industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential uses. Another critical component of the Urban Flex district is that development is pedestrian oriented and contributes to the place-making character of the City. The applicant has discussed building and site improvements that would enhance the pedestrian experience, such as windows on the facade, adding a crosswalk to the sidewalk on the south side of Albemarle, and narrowing the parking lot entrance along 4th Street. However, the application does not provide any surety that these improvements will occur, and they may become much more narrow in scope or not occur during the permitting process. If no windows are added, the rezoning to Urban Flex would create a nonconforming structure in the district. Zoning actions that create 4 nonconformities are generally discouraged. Some site improvements can be requested corresponding with the building permit, but they may not include the entirety of what is shown on the application in Exhibit F. Availability of Other Property: The property would be the first in the area to be rezoned to align Urban Flex land use designation within City Plan 2040. The rezoning furthers the goals and intent of City Plan 2040 and other relevant planning documents for the area. The property to the south was rezoned in 2005 to Downtown to facilitate the reuse of the building as a multi-tenant commercial space. The vacancy of this building is currently unknown, and significant rehabilitation would be required to adapt the building for the proposed use of a laundromat. It is the opinion of staff that zoning the subject property would not create an overabundance of land that would hinder the utilization of the property to the south. Instead, the rezoning would further promote the goals of the area, and increase the viability of the multi-tenant building to the south by bringing more people to the area. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: City Plan 2040 guides the property for Urban Flex, which is reflected in the rezoning request. Multiple other adopted plans guide the property including Belmont Fallon Neighborhood Plan (2003), Brown field Redevelopment Plan (2008), Downtown Plan (201 7), and South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan (adopted 2001 and amended in 2010 and 2024). In general, these other plans support the transition of the property and surrounding area from Light Industrial to more mixed-use development permitted through the Urban Flex District. Policy/Action Plan Applicability to matter Resilient Economy, Priority 3: Comprehensive The subject property is in an Conversion of Underperforming Plan', Resilient industrial area with a large Commercial and Industrial Areas Economy amount of underutilized and Theme vacant property. Allowing for a diversity of uses through Urban Flex rezoning will increase viability of the property overtime. Goal: Provide for a versatile mix of South Jefferson The proposed development complimentary land uses within the Redevelopment and rezoning of the property Redevelopment Area. Plant, pg. 9. will promote additional Objective: Create a vibrant place for mixed development in the work, leisure/recreation, urban living area, particularly if a and other support functions laundromat is developed on ' City Plan 2040, City of Roanoke, 2020 Z South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 2001 5 Policy/Action Plan Applicability to matter through the development of multiple site. Laundromat users tend land uses (institutional, commercial, to stay in the area for an residential) including compatible extended period of time, and mixed-use developments. patron nearby businesses during a laundry cycle. Ensure zoning designations are Brownfield The subject property is compatible with brownfield Redevelopment within the Central Roanoke redevelopment plans. Plana, pg. 42. River corridor of the Brownfield Redevelopment Plan. The plan calls for the area to convert from industrial zoning into a more mixed-use development, and the proposed rezoning would align with this direction. POLICY 5-B: Create strong pedestrian Downtown Plan, The area around the subject and bicycle connections to the p. 564 property is highlighted in the Gainsboro, Belmont, Old Southwest, Downtown Plan as needing Hurt Park, Mountain View and West "connection improvements," End neighborhoods. particularly where Albemarle crosses the railroad tracks and travels underneath 1-581 . The property to the south along Albemarle has an existing sidewalk that this property could connect to. This connection is shown in an Exhibit, but is not proffered by the applicant and may not be constructed. The applicant of the proposed development is planning to reuse the existing building on site, so the full scope of the South Jefferson Design Guidelines would not apply. However, if a complete redevelopment of the site were to occur in the future, then the design requirement of the Crossings district would apply. The Belmont Fallon Neighborhood Plan does not discuss this property in much detail. Overall, the Plan called for greater compatibility of industrial uses with residential areas, but most of the discussion of industrial uses relates to the industrial area along Campbell Ave SE. At the time of Belmont Fallon Neighborhood Plan, the property was projected to be included in the expansion of 1-581 for the creation of the 1-73 corridor. City Wide Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, City of Roanoke, 2008 ' Downtown Plan, City of Roanoke, 201 7 South Jefferson Redevelopment Area Design Guidelines, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 2024 6 Comments on Application: Planning Commission Work Session: The Planning Commission discussed the proposed zoning amendment at their work session on April 10, 2026. The Commission discussed the overall context of the rezoning, and they expressed specific concerns about the site regarding pedestrian access and lighting. The applicant submitted Amended Application No. 1 showing additional pedestrian access to site in an Exhibit; however, the plan is not proffered and cannot be fully enforced during the development review process. Interdepartmental Comments: General comments were provided from the Fire department, Western Virginia Water Authority, Transportation department, and the Planning Building and Development department related to: fire code standards, water/sewer access, building and zoning subdivision requirements, and right-of-way improvements. A majority of the comments will be reviewed during the building permit process and were provided as a reference for the applicant. However, the Planning comments related to facade transparency and right-of-way improvements cannot be fully enforced during later review stages. The applicant submitted Amended Application No. 1 showing additional facade transparency and pedestrian access to site in an Exhibit; however, the plan is not proffered and cannot be fully enforced during the development review process. If the transparency is not increased, then the rezoning would create a nonconforming structure. Public Hearing: Following short presentations by the applicant and by staff highlighting aspects of the staff report, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing. No members of the public spoke at the hearing. The Commission then discussed the application and asked the applicant questions regarding the proposed building and site improvements. The applicant shared that he intends to add windows if they are feasible upon further study of the building and to add curbing as it would help with parking flow on site. Following discussion, the Commission recommended approval with a 5-0 vote. Public Comments: No comments received to date. 7 Conclusions and Recommendations: The principal consideration is whether the proposed zoning amendment is consistent with City Plan 2024, Belmont Fallon Neighborhood Plan, South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan, Downtown Plan, and Brownfield Redevelopment Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance. All of these plans support the conversion of the property from industrial to mixed-use development, which is compatible with the Urban Flex zoning designation. S Jde Bettygeari4olfe, Vice Chair City Planning Commission Enclosure: Attachment A, Zoning District Map Distribution: Ms. Valmarie Turner, City Manager Angela O'Brien, Assistant City Manager Laura Carini, City Attorney Beverly Walkup, Interim Director of Planning, Building, and Development Katharine Gray, Planning Commission Agent Douglas Devine 8 Attachment A ZONING DISTRICT MA ' t .,:- Addresses: 1007 3 1/2 St SE Tax No:4020920 0 11(c): Ug rli'''Legend tnal c�nd m Area to be Rezoned D•Downto I Streets 9 — 6 C�1 - Zoning � � -_ �:: �1 A• D:Airport Dev r IM CG:Commercial-General f' f yrGy�, 1111111 CLS: Commercial-Large Site 7? CN: Commercial-Neighborhood • ,77 ...„. ,k, — D: Downtown i = 1-1: Light Industrial / Indust/ / rial _ 1-2: Heavy Industrial IN:Institutional j INPUD: Institutional Planned Unit Dev i I IPUD: Industrial Planned Unit Dev / i ill / , .r,, /404 4 ,:, _ MX: Mixed Use 771 MXPUD: Mixed Use Planned Unit Dev __ — 1 R-12: Residential t �, RM-1: Res Mixed �-_� �. :<. Density -I R• -3: Residential "` j f R-5: Residential ~A�� ---- 3 1 R-7: Residential ' �------.m I RA:Agricultural / - —1 R• M 1: Residential 14- (c): Res Mixed / :3 Density / RM-2: Residential r` '..: / Conditional _ RMF: Residential11111 1(c): Light Irl� i e,: ROS: Recreation and Open Space - UF: Urban Flex / -- - UC: Urban Center �i ROS: Recreation and snace Outside of City Limits / / sort err5kk* .q v:rYx 11-0T4 474 Open pi,ry -'r^.' �� 'ter-14: .,r a ,i In .; : t�. 0 80 160 320 Feet "' 't Zr -'- 1 1 I 1 1 4 4 1 1 / -- Zoning Amendment Application Department of Planning. Building and Development Room 170. Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke,Virginia 24011 Click Here to Print Phone: (540)853-1730 Filing Date: -17-26 Submittal Number: Amended Application No. 1 Request (select all that apply): ® Rezoning, Not Otherwise Listed ❑ Amendment of Proffered Conditions ❑ Rezoning,Conditional ❑ Amendment of Planned Unit Development Plan ❑ Rezoning to Planned Unit Development ❑ Amendment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District ❑ Establishment of Comprehensive Sign Overlay District Property Information. .; Address: 1007 3 1/2 Street SE also know as 326 Albemarle Ave SE Official Tax No(s).: 4020920 Existing go. Without Conditions Ordinance Zoning: I-1, Light Industrial ❑ With Conditions No(s). (If ❑ Planned Unit Development applicable): Requested ® Without Conditions Proposed Laundromat Zoning: UF, Urban Flex ❑ With Conditions Land Use: ❑ Planned Unit Development Property Owner Information: Name: Douglas Devine Phone Number: Address: 424 Walnut Ave SW. Roanoke VA 24016 E-mail: Peu .A. T7e4, '/—/7—.2-6 Applicant Information (if different from owner);_ Name: Phone Number: Address: E-mail: Authorized Agent Information (if applicableli Name: r Phone Number: Address: E-mail: Au�onzed Agmf c Zoning Amendment Application Checklist The following must be submitted for all applications: 6Z Completed application form and checklist. • Written narrative explaining the reason for the request. IR Metes and bounds description, if applicable. • Filing fee. (5 Concept plan meeting the Application Requirements of item'2(c)' in Zoning Amendment Procedures. I— Written proffers. See the City's Guide to Proffered Conditions. Concept plan meeting the Application Requirements of item'2(c)' in Zoning Amendment Procedures. Please label as 'development plan' if proffered. F ✓ Development plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-326 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. For a comprehensive sign overlay district, the following must be submitted: ✓ Comprehensive signage plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-336(d)(2)of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Amended development or concept plan meeting the Application Requirements of item'2(c)'in Zoning Amendment Procedures, if applicable. ✓ Written proffers to be amended. See the City's Guide to Proffered Conditions. I— Copy of previously adopted Ordinance. ✓ Amended development plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-326 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. ✓ Copy of previously adopted Ordinance. I Amended comprehensive signage plan meeting the requirements of Section 36.2-336(d)of the City's Zoning Ordinance. I Copy of previously adopted Ordinance. For a proposal that requires a traffic impact study be submitted to the City,the following must also be submitted: ✓ A Traffic Impact Study in compliance with Appendix B-2(e)of the City's Zoning Ordinance. c _ _ _ _ _ ollowing must also be submitted: r Cover sheet. r Traffic impact analysis. ✓ Concept plan. I Proffered conditions, if applicable. ✓ Required fee. *An electronic copy of this application and checklist can be found at www.roanokeva.gov/planningcommission. A complete packet must be submitted each time an application is amended, unless otherwise specified by staff. ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION Supporting Documentation Package 1-1 Light Industrial — OF Urban Flex I Without Conditions 1007 31/2 Street SE, Roanoke, Virginia Also known as: 326 Albemarle Avenue SE i 1007 4th Street SE Official Tax No. 4020920 Proposed Use: Self-Service Laundromat Douglas A. Devine 424 Walnut Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Submitted to: Department of Planning, Building and Development Room 170, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (540) 853-1730 I planning@roanokeva.gov WRITTEN NARRATIVE — Zoning Amendment Application, Tax No. 4020920 Zoning Amendment Application — Official Tax No. 4020920 1007 31/2 Street SE / 326 Albemarle Avenue SE, Roanoke, Virginia The applicant, Douglas A. Devine, respectfully requests that the official zoning designation of the property located at 1007 3'/2 Street SE (also known as 326 Albemarle Avenue SE and 1007 4th Street SE), bearing Official Tax Number 4020920, be amended from I-1 Light Industrial to UF Urban Flex, without conditions. Consistency with the Purpose of the Urban Flex District The Urban Flex district was established by the City of Roanoke specifically to be applied to underperforming urban industrial areas that have sufficient infrastructure to support mixed use development, providing for a mix of small scale industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential uses. This property meets that description precisely. The building is an existing commercial/industrial structure (Use Code 400) that is currently underutilized, situated on a 0.2359-acre triangular lot with established water, sewer, road, and utility infrastructure. The proposed rezoning to UF represents the highest and best use of the property consistent with the district's stated intent. The City's Planning Department has confirmed that a self-service laundromat is an appropriate personal service use within the Urban Flex district. Consistency with City Plan 2040 and the Future Land Use Map The requested rezoning to Urban Flex is consistent with the City of Roanoke's Future Land Use Map designations for this area. Urban Flex is the appropriate district classification identified for properties in this corridor, reflecting the City's long-range planning vision for transitioning underperforming industrial land into productive mixed use development. Approving this rezoning advances the goals of City Plan 2040, which calls for the revitalization of underperforming urban areas, mixed use development, and improved quality of life for all Roanoke residents. Historical Context and Street Configuration Historical survey records confirm that the subject building was originally constructed with frontage oriented toward both 3'/2 Street and 4th Street, consistent with the conventional urban block pattern of the surrounding neighborhood at the time of construction. The property's legal description — "PT LOT 27 & ST CLOSED R D & G BLK 1" — confirms in the official record that the street vacation is incorporated into this parcel. The building's current configuration, including its primary access from a parking lot on the 3% Street side, reflects the original design intent. The property's present situation is the result of a subsequent municipal ordinance vacating 3% Street, an action that affected the property through no fault of the owner. This demonstrates that the building was constructed in full compliance with applicable standards and its current situation is a product of city action, not incompatible development. Community Need The proposed self-service laundromat will serve a demonstrated community need in the Southeast Roanoke neighborhood (Assessment Neighborhood 840). The surrounding area contains a significant concentration of older housing stock, including pre-1978 structures and rental units, many of which lack in-unit washer and dryer connections. A neighborhood laundromat directly addresses a basic quality-of-life need for area residents and provides an affordable, accessible service within walking and short driving distance of a dense residential population. There is currently no self-service laundromat within immediate walking distance of this location. Conclusion The requested rezoning from I-1 Light Industrial to OF Urban Flex is consistent with the purpose of the Urban Flex district, aligns with the City's Future Land Use Map and the goals of City Plan 2040, activates an underutilized building with a small-scale community-serving commercial use, and is confirmed as an appropriate use by the City's Planning Department. The applicant respectfully requests approval of this application. Respectfully submitted, Douglas A. Devine 424 Walnut Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Signature: P6764,4. v r. Date: '—/7-24 CONCEPT PLAN •j x f $1/ S22Q Entry 8 Exit / . ,_,.. ,,,,,, ,„,„.: , ,.),- : Parking Lot x �. Main Entrance �� w o V) �xs<<o a� 4th Street RV ,x ., Bu!(a g , Boat Storage propose (n n. . - 4AEug"�tg4E�E r 4�C�rp�at .4' , ,k. f` -": . ,, Alb �ar�e q •k r_m..m Confirmed Property Data — Roanoke City GIS Tax No. 4020920 Primary Address 1007 3A Street SE. Roanoke, Virginia Also Known As 326 Albemarle Avenue SE I 1007 4th Street SE Owner DEVINE DOUGLAS A Mailing Address 424 Walnut Avenue SW. Roanoke. Virginia 24016 Area 0.2359 acres I 10,277 sq ft Frontage 207 ft total 1106.92 ft Albemarle (per deed) Average Depth 50 ft Legal Description PT LOT 27 & ST CLOSED R D & G BLK 1 Assessment Neighborhood 840 —Southeast Property Use Code 400—Commercial/Industrial Existing Zoning I-1, Light Industrial. Without Conditions Requested Zoning UF, Urban Flex, Without Conditions NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT STATEMENT Neighborhood Context Statement Zoning Amendment Application—Tax No. 4020920 1007 31/2 Street SE/ 326 Albemarle Avenue SE, Roanoke, Virginia The subject property is located in the Southeast quadrant of the City of Roanoke (Assessment Neighborhood 840), an area characterized by a significant concentration of older residential housing stock, light industrial uses, and outdoor storage operations. The immediate surroundings include an elevated highway corridor (I-581/US 220) to the northwest, a fenced RV and boat storage yard to the east along 4th Street SE, and Albemarle Avenue SE to the south. The residential neighborhoods within close proximity contain a high proportion of pre-1978 housing units, including rental properties and older single-family homes, many of which lack in-unit washer and dryer connections. Older housing stock of this type frequently lacks laundry facilities, requiring residents to travel to access self-service laundry. There is currently no self-service laundromat within immediate walking distance of this location. Residents of the surrounding Southeast Roanoke neighborhoods must travel outside the area to access laundry facilities, creating a hardship particularly for households without reliable transportation. The proposed self-service laundromat would directly address this gap, providing an affordable, accessible amenity to the residents of Southeast Roanoke. The use is low-traffic, low-intensity, and entirely compatible with the transitional industrial character of the surrounding area — activating an underperforming industrial property (Use Code 400, currently vacant) with a community-serving business while contributing to the city's tax base. EXHIBIT A — Koontz Survey — Original Lot Configuration (1910) Map of Land Belonging to P.E. Koontz, traced from Deed Book 501 page 457. Shows original platted lots including Lot 27 with 3% Street and 4th Street both active as public streets prior to the vacation ordinance. 5TREET• MOUNTAIN MOUNTAIN . .r _ JO • ' 'WO( -- .,i \.\\...... e •ii, Y` lam; �; _ - 6 Li tl if J N - ` ----it 13 •,i ii ' 0S • , AI i d i ' j � L�' li. i ° ai N A dr N i ✓A y C p IS• O MAP Of I LAND Ott ONO/NO IV zl P E.KOONTZ. b�•qs./ /A W J II pl SAWN NWLIPaNM A 66441,0170 o J 0 r SPRUCE ST. I .,.. w.. EXHIBIT B — Area Survey Before Ordinance Removing 31/2 Street Broader context survey showing the full street grid prior to the vacation ordinance, with Albemarle Avenue SE, 3%Street, and 4th Street SE all shown as active streets. :. I ' I _ '3 EXHIBIT C — 1975 Certified Plat of Survey — Official Lot No. 4020920 Plat of Survey made for Wen-Don Chemical Co., by David Dick&Associates, October 1, 1975. Confirms lot dimensions (10,277 sq ft/0.2359 acres), 106.92 ft Albemarle frontage, and the notation '3%St. Closed'per City Ordinance. Book 1368 Page 461. b/NOrMC. • E ,.1.5 nai1368 nu 461 1 O / 0 \ N W / / ry o � y 1 • rN WIt te V r, . 0 / y� 1 " o � �G—-7 1Z u rn Yl ry row', To • 0C I r ,ate, — 3 ^�'ry Mew. C I.. W v� �� N]�546 =T Cle I N 2 Y��j. ?V^AM ✓ �i �__ , i c , 4 Sd7'Z3,F5e a • F--r— . o a2,,, .+ ; w •w M i L' (' r` ro Y h -.... O !' 3s- \\o +; _� �' l; ti Ok/cINL 1 I„I `c F f02oYZ ., „,.. 04 ,/g2775o.Fr SO �. `�'.l •O.23S9 Acrr�, w MPS.aa' _n'iowe n-u+e 0 7es .s1E. 7-s roar' "pe-o I 4 PReMa <.,\J. IPA,MON n O.'rJcG 0'., 7.P.COetiE4 .,..,e.r0 E lLOrw4 y P.0�s'. N370 ail' ,pqe rr.G.rr u I.I-rs.a;-, -4-N74'Z5,35"W /04.32• er.4.ae[' . 41.1e et'sr.[rwf h ALBEMARLE AVENUE S.E. PLAT O,SuRvEY JoeWa,n.77Z we.2e.5 I MpPff fo< WEN-DON CHEMICAL CO. Ocr./,F97S OFF/GAL tor.440.4ri2O920,Ar NO4rNwCSr F N4[FE0 Gaa7/FY TAW' CORNEA Of ALE.MARLS AVE.F 314 srREfr SE. 7Nr5 Pi,"er,av[veY ROANOKE V(RWN14 /Sc acr BY,DAVIDDK¢A rc550C4ir£5 i IAA, .., CC /,1975 �/ LMG/Nf:.es�SPIOZYO[i ..-PLr'''.. Rr.fN4R.OSUtr£r0[ I EXHIBIT D — City of Roanoke Future Land Use Map Official Future Land Use Map from City Plan 2040. The subject property corridor is designated Urban Flex (light purple/lavender), confirming the requested rezoning is consistent with the City's adopted long-range planning vision. Future Land Use Map 7 kie, • • as Legend • Wage Cental • Future Land Use -Cormerw1.lave Sole -Commerom Co.dor -Mauvr4 Inst niton.IrComr.wn ty —Um:Resdertial Ik ep Use Natural Space Qpen Sea?Rec.aloUApncult N,•gnoorrgoa Comr..raal Genera Resd.MW -Specul Plane.nv Area Urdar Fki EXHIBIT E — Site Photographs Current condition photographs of existing building and site. Tax No. 4020920— 1007 3;,1 Street SE. Roanoke. Virginia. — . .. F -\ 4 aj 1 t Albemarle Avenue SE side—building exterior Highway/NW side—building exterior 1 F. /4 - -----"''.---.7------- .---" ::':. ' ' \ ,f�j/ I �...+"'". \ , . -- v t e .• Ys... ''1... . .+ t :Y.`- %...e AA' - , 4th Street/parking lot side—building exterior Interior EXHIBIT E Continued — Site Photographs Current condition photographs of existing building and site. Tax No. 4020920— 1007 31/2 Street SE, Roanoke, Virginia\ , 1 .1 1:U. Ai I { I ?` I ' i; p: 1 I. \ I I ..,' .„_ L...., - _ , ,r I }� Interior EXHIBIT F — Site Improvements Proposed Facade Transparency— Illustrative Rendering The following images illustrate the approximate location and scale of proposed window openings on the building facade. Blue rectangles indicate proposed window placements. Final window specifications will be confirmed at the building permit stage. Note: Due to floodplain windows cannot be below 3.5'above top of slab. « , «« .tee: --4 s. .. ,,,., _.....„..... .., _ , .._ , _.. , kolt , - , .,. .. - -47,t,..., . _ „ _ .. awe, • .. .. eve.n ». EXHIBIT F — Site Improvements Continued Parking & Crosswalk— Illustrative Rendering The following images illustrate the approximate location and scale of proposed parking lot curbing and cross walk at Albermarle Avenue. ) ff . , .0, r 0 ... _ _ 11,,,, , _, 581/US220 Entrance ['Curbing Exit G Curbing ./, / 4' Street RV& Or £s m Boat Storage r c7 bermar�.q . : , °"` / veS / m ..,. „ . :„, Cross Walk 1 _ ` sl ...fie.._. ZONING DISTRICT MA 'D . c 4 Addresses: 1007 3 1/2 St SE ;' Tax No: 4020920 .'' '111: ikLr ' I 1(c): Light, Legend � Indu�tria�Cond Cr] Area to be Rezoned d•wntow � Streets I { Zoning AD: Airport Dev �---- ' -: CG: Commercial-General i CLS: Commercial-Large Site / / j CN: Commercial-Neighborhood D: Downtown I- .Light ndustr onditional "I" ht ., I-1: Light Industrial a I-2: Heavy Industrial ' Ind slnal IN: Institutional �� 1` INPUD: Institutional Planned Unit Dev - IPUD: Industrial Planned Unit Dev e „ t CEDAR� MX: Mixed Use _.�.. f r� ' , BLUFF I MXPUD: Mixed Use Planned Unit Dev f' ♦♦♦tI ` 4 R-12: Residential �� `���� '♦♦ '` RM-1: Res Mixed / / w�_. Density R-3: Residential R-5: Residential J ,' R-7: Residential , , i r--------.„ ; RA: Agricultural RM-1: Residential 'RM-1(c): Res Mixed Density RM-2: Residential `�_____ Conditional RMF: Residential >-1(c): Light In• -- „ / , Ern ROS: Recreation and Open Space . UF: Urban Flex D(c) r.'" •' " -1: Light •nditional dustnal a=� UC: Urban Center ' t sK ~� ROS: Recreation and Outside of CityLimits / , Open j B �f ��, mace 0 80 160 320 Feet WE r' / -----',/�' ,/ AFFIDAVIT REQUEST: The Roanoke City Council is pursuing three Council Member Initiatives, including review of: • The 2024 Zoning Amendments,which primarily relate to residential zoning • - A new Vape and Tobacco Establishment ordinance • The Evans Spring Plan Following this review, some of the proposed amendments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979), as amended, would reduce the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on residentially zoned property, specifically in the R-12, R-5, R-3, RM-1, and RM-2 Residential Districts. Depending on the zoning district, the proposed amendments include, but may not be limited to: increasing the minimum lot area required for each dwelling unit, reducing the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on a lot, and/or establishing a maximum lot area. As a result of potential reductions in allowable dwelling unit density, all property owners of residentially zoned property in City of Roanoke are receiving this letter, regardless of whether their property is affected. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) }TO-WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The affiant, Emily G.Clark,first being duly sworn,states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail this iv AI +_ 44..'", 2026, notices of a public hearing to be held on this V% L• 1 -"--. , 2026, on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels as set out on the attached. Emily G. CI SUBSCIIIBED AND SWORN to before me,a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke,Virginia,this 2 Al) day of p R u L_ , 2026. STEM - `:,-j.3 iu Corritnorithi:it; „'',,,, 1 , ; Ite_u.„________ My Cvrnanii sior.:,a:i�:` . p.1�7d�ZG Notary Public CARDINAL NEWS See Proof on Next Page AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Cardinal News P.O. Box 4455, Roanoke,VA 24015 (540) 467-2189 State of Florida, County of Orange, ss: I, Edmar Corachia, of lawful age, being duly sworn upon oath depose and say that I am an agent of Column Software, PBC, duly appointed and authorized agent of the Publisher of Cardinal News, a publication that is a "legal newspaper" as that term is defined in 8.01-324 of the Code of Virginia, and authorized as such by Order of the Circuit Court, that the full text of the attached notice was published in said publication and also at www.publicnoticevirginia.com, which is a searchable statewide repository of such notices, on the following dates. Publication Dates: • Mar 30, 2026 • Apr 6, 2026 Notice ID: yZUfouwvfrDiOswi4R04 Notice Name: Public Hearing Notice Publication Fee: $235.00 Vei mar GorAchi i Agent ongll,,,,,%, tPµY-eo �j JESSICA GORDON-THOMPSON 0 0-' '•% Notary Public-State of Florida VERIFICATION I I II I I Q= Commission#eeaotsss y:r�` \'a State of Florida '%.,;FiiidllF\1\\p�� Expires onnugustt7,2o2s County of Orange Signed or attested before me on this: 04/08/2026 Notary Public Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof. Public Hearing Notice I Page 1 of 4 . Public Hearing Notice PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City_Planning Commission for the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing in'the City Council Chamber,Fourth Root,Room 450,Noel,C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Avenue SW;Roanoke,Virginia,24011,on April 13,2026,at 1:30 pm,or as soon as the matter may be heard,to consider and to provide the Planning Commissiori's recommendation to the City Council with respect to p roposed amendments to Chapter 36.2,Zoning,of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979),as amended,to consider(1)proposed zoning amendments related to the Council Member Initiatives to evaluate various aspects of the zoning code,including vape shop reg- ulations,the September 16,2024 housing ordinance;and other identified community concerns,and(2)proposed amendments to Cjty Plan 2040,the City's Comprehensive Plan,by adopting amendments to the Evans Spring Master Plans,all as further described below. (1)The proposed Zoning Amendments to Chapter 36.2:Zoning,of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979),as amended,are intended to facilitate context sensitive housing development;to promote community health and wellness;to encourage purposeful land use to make changes to the use tables for multiple purpose,industrial,and planned unit development districts;and to make changes to clarify and correct elements of the zoning code,such amendments being for the public purposes of promoting public health,public safety,and good zoning practice.Such amendments do not involve a change in the zoning map classification of any parcels of land.The Planning Commission will consider these Zoning Amendments: 1.Section 36.2-205,Dimensional regulations,changes to lot frontage and maximum front yard requirements;addition of section de- scription for inf ill development; 2.Section 36.2-312,Dimensional regulations for residential districts,changes to the dimensional regulations for residential districts with some changes resulting in.a reduction of allowable density in certain districts; 3.Section 36.2-315,Use table for multiple purpose districts,changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the mul- tiple purpose districts; 4.Section 36.2-322,Use table for industrial districts,changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the industrial districts; 5.Section 36.2-327,Use table for planned unit development districts,changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the planned unit development districts; 6.Section 36.2-403,Accessory uses and structures,addition of supplemental regulations for portable storage containers; 7.Section 36.2-405,Bed and breakfast,homestay,and short-term rental establishments,changes to standards for homestay estab- lishments; 8.Section 36.2-407.3,Data Center,addition of-supplemental regulations for data centers; 9.Section 36.2-409.1,Dwellings,addition of parking and design standards for specific dwelling types; 10.Section 36.2-426.1,.Retail Sales of Vape and Tobacco Establishments,addition,of supplemental regulations for vape and tobacco establishments;. 11.Section 36.2-429,Temporary uses,changes to zoning districts for produce stands; 12.Section 36.2-540,Zoning amendments,changes to staff roles for zoning amendment procedure; . 13.Section 36.2-625,Outdoor lighting standards,changes to wording for pole-mounted lighting; 14.Section 36.2-644,Overall tree canopy requirements,changes to internal City Code references; 15.Section 36.2-646,Facade planting,changes to building conditions where facade plantings are required; 16.Appendix A,Definitions,additions,removal,and changes to definitions; 17.Appendix B,Submittal Requirements,changes to Basic Development Plan submission requirements; On February 2.2026,the City Council adopted a Resolution(Resolution No.43349-020226)initiating the evaluation of various aspects of the Zoning Code,including vape shop regulations,the September 16,2024 housing ordinance,and other identified community con- cerns to provide additional opportunities for further public comment,Planning Commission review,and City Council review. The Zoning Amendments that will be considered: 1.Reduce the density of dwelling units permitted in certain residential zoning districts.More specifically,some of the proposed amend- ments to Chapter 36.2,Zoning,of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979),as amended,would reduce the maximum number of dwell- Public Hearing Notice I Page 2 of 4 ing units allowed on residentially zoned property,specifically in the R-12,R-5,R-3,RM-1,and RM-2 Residential Districts.Geograph- ically,these residential districts are located throughout the City and cover the bulk of the City's land area and almost all of Roanoke's housing supply. The purposes of the R-12,R-5,R-3,and RM-1 districts are to provide a range of housing options and to provide opportunities for compatible home-based entrepreneurship.Dimensional and supplemental regulations implement standards that control building form building placement and other characteristics of development.These districts cover the majority of the City's land area and contain most of Roanoke°s housing supply.The purpose of the RM-2 district is to provide for all housing types with an emphasis on townhouses, cottage courts,and apartment buildings.This district is generally mapped in areas near or adjacent to neighborhood and other com- mercial centers,but also may be applied to existing apartment buildings in neighborhood contexts.Depending on the zoning district, the proposed amendments include,but may not be limited to:increasing the minimum lot area required for each dwelling unit,reducing the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on a lot,and/or establishing a maximum lot area.The following chart describes the changes in more detail: Zoning District RA R-12 R-7 R-5 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 I RMF Minimum lot area for each 43,560 2 0. 2,000 1 0.. 4,000 1,500 1410 1,000 dwelling(sq ft) 44 000 2,000 1,500 1 509 Minimum lot area for each 1,500 1,000 1,000 group living adult resident or room(sq ft) Corner lot maximum number of 1 3 4 4 4 & No. No dwellings 4 4 6 Omit limit Interior or through lot maximum 1 1 2 3 3. 4: No No number of dwellings 2 2 3 limit limit Minimum area of a lot 43,560 8,000 6,500 4,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 15,000 Maximum area of a let 15 000 24.000 Note:Text to be removed is in red end new proposed text is in red underline, Fora map of the residentially zoned property subject to the changes,please visit mw.roanokev_a.gov/cmi/map 2.Implement priorities of the City Plan 2040 related to housing,neighborhood choice,complete neighborhoods,equity,context-sensi- tive design,health,wellness,and purposeful land use; 3.Address the need for a broad range of housing types available; 4.Add use classification and supplemental regulations for vape and tobacco establishments,data centers,data processing facilities, and inpatient mental health and substance abuse clinics; 5.Limit districts where self-storage uses are permitted to allow more efficient use of the City's limited developable land area; 6.Clarify and correct elements of the zoning code that are confusing,hard to read,or difficult to enforce; 7.Change where certain uses are permitted,not permitted,or require a special exception in the following use categories:Commercial; Industrial;Assembly and Entertainment;Public,Institutional,and Community Facilities;Warehousing and Distribution. (2)A request by the City of Roanoke to consider adopting amendments to Evans Spring Master Plan adopted as a part of City Plan 2040,the City's comprehensive plan.Evans Spring Master Plan is designed to provide a vision that addresses neighborhood needs, environmental conditions,market conditions,economic impacts,and infrastructure constraints. A physical copy of the proposed amendments is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk,Suite 456,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Virginia,24011.Citizens may also access the amendments,along with explana- tory material,at httpllroanokeva.gov/cmi.The ordinance ordaining,amending,and/or adopting the amendments described above shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council for the City of Roanoke. All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the City Planning Commission at the public hearing.Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Planning Commission by mail to 215 Church Avenue SW,Room 166,Roanoke,VA 24011,or by email to planningcommission@roanokeva.gov. Emily G.Clark,Secretary,City Planning Commission The City of Roanoke will make reasonable accommodations for any person with a disability to participate in the hearing.Please contact the City Clerk's Office,(540)853-2541,by noon,April 10,2026,to request accommodations. The City of Roanoke provides interpretation at no cost for all public meetins,upon request.If you would like to request an interpreter, please let us know at feast 24 hours in advance by calling(540)853-1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke proporciona interpretation sin costa por todas citas publicas,previa solicitud.Si usted desea solicitar un inter- prete,haganoslo saber con al menos 24 horas de antelacian por Ilamar(540)853-1283. Jiji la Roanoke linatoa huduma ya ukalimani bile malipo katika mikutano yote ya umma,inepcombwa.Iwapo ungependa kuomba mka- limani,tafadhali tujulishe angalau saa 24 kabla kwa kupiga simu(540)853-1283. Public Hearing Notice I Page 3 of 4 24 8 53-1283(540) • Public Hearing Notice I Page 4 of 4 See Proof on Next Page AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Roanoke Rambler PO Box 323,Vinton,VA 24179 (540) 307-1475 State of Florida, County of Orange, ss: I, Edmar Corachia, an authorized agent of Column Software, PBC, which is an authorized agent of the Publisher of the Roanoke Rambler, a publication that is a"legal newspaper"as that term is defined in 8.01-324 of the Code of Virginia, and authorized as such by Order of the Circuit Court, that the full text of the attached notice was published in said publication and also at www.publicnoticevirginia.com,which is a searchable statewide repository of such notices, on the following dates: Publication Dates: • Mar 30, 2026 • Apr 6, 2026 Notice ID: XFdiVDMPyhlzlMc7jYk0 Notice Name: Public Hearing Notice Publication Fee: $110.00 EdniAr GorAci1u Agent �,iuuuulmiii,� Par o� �� JESSICA GORDON-THOMPSON _ Notary Public-State of Florida VERIFICATION =. — Mill Commission#HH301656 svr�` °a State of Florida F of Fv°p��\ Expires on August 17,2028 County of Orange 'Ph4IlIlo Signed or attested before me on this: 04/08/2026 Notary Public Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof. Public Hearing Notice 1 Page 1 of 4 • PUBLIC B F'ART\G NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City Planning Commission for the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing in the City Council Chatinber;Fourth Floor,Room 450.Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Ave- nue SW,Roanoke,Virginia,24011,on April 13,2026,at 1:30:pm.or as soon as the matter may be heard,to consider and to provide the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council with respect tO p roposed amendments to Chapter 36.2,Zoning,of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979),as amended,to consider(1)proposed zoning amendments related to the Council Member Initiatives to evaluate various aspects of the zoning code,including vape shop regulations,the Sep- tember 16,2024 housing ordinance, and other identified community concerns,and(2)proposed amendments to City Plan 2040,the City's Comprehensive Plan,by adopting amendureirts to the Evans Spring Master Plans,all as further described below. (1)The proposed Zoning Amendments to Chapter 36.2.Zoning,of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979),as amended,are intended to facilitate context sensitive housing development;to promote community health and wellness;to encourage putposefitl land use to make changes to the use tables for multiple purpose,industrial,and planned unit development districts;and to make changes to clarify and correct elements of the zoning code.such amendments being for the public purposes of promoting public health,public safety,and good zoning practice.Such amendments do.not involve a change in the zoning map classification of any parcels of land.The Planning Commission will consider these Zoning-Amendments: 1. Section 36.2-205, Dimensional regulations, changes to lot frontage and maximum front yard requirements:addition of section description for infill development; 2. Section 36.2-312.Dimensional regulations for residential districts,changes tO the dimensional, regulations for residential districts with some,changes resulting in a reduction of allowable density in certain districts; 3.Section.36.2-315,Use table for multiple purpose districts,changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the multiple purpose districts; 4. Section 36.2-322,Use table for industrial districts,changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the industrial districts; 5.Section 36.2-327,Use table for planned unit development districts,changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the planned unit development districts; 6.Section 36.2-403.Accessory uses and structures,addition of supplemental regulations for porta- ble storage containers: 7.Section 36.2-405,Bed and breakfast,homestay,and short-tetra rental establishments,changes to standards for homestay establishments; S.Section 36.2-407.3.Data Center,addition of supplemental regulations for data centers; 9. Section 36.2-409.1,Dwellings,addition of parking and design standards for specific dwelling types; 10.Section 36.2-426.1,Retail Sales of Vape and Tobaceo Establishments,addition of supplemental regulations for vape and tobacco establishments; 11.Section 36.2-429,Temporary uses,changes to zoning districts for produce stands: 12.Section 36.2-540,Zoning amendments,changes to staff roles for zoning amendment procedure; 13.Section 36.2-625,Outdoor lighting standards,changes to wording for pole-mounted lighting; 14.Section 36.2-644,Overall tree canopy requirements,changes to internal City Code references; 15.Section 36.2-646,Facade planting,changes to building conditions where facade plantings are required: 16.Appendix A,Definitions,additions,removal,and changes to definitions; 17.Appendix B,Submittal Requirements,changes to Basic Development Plan submission require- ments; Public Hearing Notice l Page 2 of 4 On February 2,2026,the City Council adopted a Resolution(Resolution No.43349-020226)ini- tiating the evaluation of various aspects of the Zoning Code,including vape shop regulations,the September 16,2024 housing ordinance,and other identified community concerns to provide addi- tional opportunities Tor further public comment.Planning Commission review,and City Council review. The Zoning Amendments that will be considered: 1.Reduce the density of dwelling units permitted in certain residential zoning districts.More spe- cifically, some of the proposed amendments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979), as amended,would reduce the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on residentially zoned property,specifically in the R-I2,R-5.R-3,RM-1.and RM-2 Residential Dis- tricts.Geographically,these residential districts are located throughout the City and cover the bulk of the City's land area and almost all of Roanoke's-housing supply. The purposes of the R-12,R-5,R-3,and RM-1 districts are to provide a range of housing options and to provide opportunities for compatible home-based entrepreneurship.Dimensional and sup- plemental regulations implement standards that control building form building placement and other characteristics of development. These districts cover the majority of the City_s land area and contain most of Roanoke_s housing supply.The purpose of the RM-2 district is to provide for all housing types with an emphasis on townhouses,cottage courts,and apartment buildings.This dis- trict is generally mapped in areas near or adjacent to neighborhood and other commercial centers, but also may be applied to existing apartment buildings in neighborhood contexts.Depending on the zoning district,the proposed amendments include,but may not be limited to: increasing the minimum lot area required for each dwelling unit, reducing the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on a lot,and/or-establishing a maximum lot area.The follotivung chart describes the changes in more detail: Zoning District RA R-12 R-7 R-5 R-3 RAI 1 RM1-2 R 1F Minimum lot area for 43,560 2.500 2,000 -17500 17000 17500 -1701343 1,000 each dwelling(sq ft) 4.000 2,000 1,500 1.500 Minimum lot area for 1,500 1,000 1,000 each group living adult resident or room(sq ft) Corner lot maximum 1 3 4 6 6 fr No No number of dwellings 4 4 6 limit limit Interior or through`lot 1 1 2 0 3 4 No No maximum number of 2 2 3 limit limit dwellings Minimum area of a lot 43,560 8.000 5,500 4,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 15,000 Maximum area of a lot 15_000 24 000 Vote;Tell to be removed is in red sfriketlrrotrgf,and hew proposed terns in red mtilfea7ine, For a map of the residentially zoned property subject to the.changes,please visit www.roanokeva.gov/cmi/map 2.Implement priorities of the City Plan 2040 related to housing,neighborhood choice,complete neighborhoods,equity,context-sensitive design,health,wellness,and purposeful lard use; 3.Address the need for a broad range of housing types available; 4.Add use classification and supplemental regulations for vape and tobacco establishments,data centers,data processing facilities,and inpatient mental health and substance abuse clinics; 5.Limit districts where self-storage uses are permitted to allow more efficient use of the City's limited developable land area; 6.Clarify and correct elements of the zoning code that are confusing,hard to read,or difficult to enforce; 7.Change where certain uses are permitted,not permitted,or require a special exception in the fol- lowing use categories:Commercial;Industrial:Assembly and Entertainment;Public.Institutional, and Community Facilities;Warehousing and Distribution. (2)A request by the City of Roanoke to consider adopting amendments to Evans Spring Master Plan adopted as a part of City Plan 2040.the City's comprehensive plan.Evans Spring Master Plan is designed to provide a vision that addresses neighborhood needs,environmental conditions, market conditions..economic impacts,and infrastructure constraints. A physical copy of the proposed amendments is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk,Suite 456,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke, Virginia,24011. Citizens may also access the amendments, along with explanatory material, at http://roanokeva.gov/cmi.The ordinance ordaining,'amending,and/or adopting the amendments described above shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council for the City of Roanoke. Public Hearing Notice I Page 3 of 4 All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the City Planning Commission at the public hearing.Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Planning Commission by mail to 215 Church Avenue SW,Room 166,Roanoke,VA 24011,or by email to planningcomnissionG roanokeva.gov Emily G.Clark,.Secretary,City Planning Commission The City of Roanoke_will make reasonable accommodations for any person with a disability to participate in the hearing.Please contact the City Clerk's Office,(540)853-2541,by noon,April 10;2026,.to request accommodations. The City of Roanoke provides interpretation at no cost for all public meetings,upon request.If you would like to request an interpreter,please let us know at least 24 hours in advance by calling • (540)853-1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke proporciona.interpretacionsin costo por todas citas pu blicas,previa solici- ted.Si usted desea solicitar.on interprete,haganoslo saber con al menos 24 horas de antelacion por llamar(540)853-1283.• Jiji la Roanoke linatoa huduma ya ukalimani bila malipo katika mikuitano yote ya umma, in- apoombwa. Iwapo ungependa kuomba mkalimani,tafadhali tutjulishe angalau saa 24 kabla kwa kupiga simu(540)853-1283. �J,�J J �J JCS✓��x3I`,: uJIS bop` Iv ja u�S I`�° a ,: �.JLPI�1 l&j.j I�wl>(aa saga I4,1;Ivd d iI`cal, 24 u-l`u 6.,-J 131.3..55 I r LI 04' I.,�:.�5-.91/4.1)8 53-1283 (540) • Published on Roanoke Rambler(luttp://www.roanokerambler.coniO:March 30;April 6,2026 Public Hearing Notice I Page 4 of 4 CARDINAL NEWS See Proof on Next Page AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Cardinal News P.O. Box 4455, Roanoke,VA 24015 • (540) 467-2189 State of Florida, County of Broward, ss: I, Anjana Bhadoriya, of lawful age, being duly sworn upon oath depose and say that I am an agent of Column Software, PBC, duly appointed and authorized agent of the Publisher of Cardinal News, a publication that is a "legal newspaper"as that term is defined in 8.01-324 of the Code of Virginia, and authorized as such by Order of the Circuit Court, that the full text of the attached notice was published in said publication and also at www.publicnoticevirginia.com, which is a searchable statewide repository of such notices, On the following dates. Publication Dates: • Mar 30, 2026 • Apr 6, 2026 Notice ID: 3xOSP8AjGFm12Au6VHNC Notice Name: Legal Ad -April 2026 -Vision Zero PC Only Publication Fee: $235.00 ANjcu,a 8h dorya Agent c�PvltlnUet���� SHERI SMITH Notary Public-State of Florida VERIFICATION ?' �i '`� I I I I I I iQ_ Commission#HH269363 i)'•'•.A.'��� Expires on May 31,2026 State of Florida %,F°F fu° County of Broward Signed or attested before me on this: 04/07/2026 I 3_Soak Notary Public Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof. Legal Ad -April 2026 -Vision Zero PC Only Page 1 of 2 • PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, April 13,2026,at 1:30 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,in the City Council Chamber,Fourth Floor,Room 450,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Virginia,to consider the following request: A request by the City of Roanoke to consider and adopt updates to the Complete Streets Policy and adopt the Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan as a part of City Plan 2040,the City's comprehensive plan adopted in 2020.The Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan is designed to enhance roadway safe- ty;aiming to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries by 2040 and cut them by 25% by 2030."This plan will focus on all users,including pedestrians,bicyclists,public transit users,motorists,micromobility users,and commercial vehicle drivers. Physical copies of this plan are available for public inspection in the Planning;Building, &Development Department,First Floor,Room 170,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Virginia,,24011.Citizens may also access the plan at www.roanokeva.govivisionzero.All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the Planning Commission at the public hearing.Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Planning Commission by mail,to 215 Church Avenue SW,Room 170,Roanoke,VA,24011,or by email to planningcommission@roanokeva.gov. Emily G.Clark,Secretary,City Planning Commission City Council will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid matter on Monday,April 20, 2026,at 7:00 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,in the City Council Chamber,Fourth Floor,Room 450,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Av- enue SW,Roanoke,Virginia.All persons wishing to address City Council may sign-up online at www.roanokeva.gov/council.In,order to sign up,the form to speak before City Council may be accessed under the'tab'Sign Up Form to Speak Before Council"on the left of the screen.For further information,you may contact the Office of the City Clerk at (540)853-2541.. Cecelia F.McCoy,CMC,City Clerk The City of Roanoke will make reasonable accommodations for any person with'a dis- ability to participate in the hearing.Please contact the City Clerk's Office,(540)853-2541, by noon,April 10,2026,to request accommodations. The City Of Roanoke provides interpretation at no cost for all public meetings,upon re- quest.If you would like to request an interpreter,please let us know at least 24 hours in advance by calling(540)853-1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke proporciona interpretacion sin costa por todas citas publicas, previa solicitud.Si usted desea aolicitar un interprete,haganoslo saber con al menos 24 horas de antelacion por Ilamar(540)853-1283. Jiji la Roanoke linatoa huduma ya ukalimani bila malipo katika mikutano yoto ya umma, inapoombwa.Iwapo ungependa kuomba mkalimani,tafadhali tujulishe angalau saa 24 • kabla kwa kupiga simu(540)853-1283. • • Legal Ad -April 2026 -Vision Zero PC Only I Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, May 11, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., Or as soon thereafter as the matters may be heard, in the CSA Conference Room (Formerly EOC Conference Room), First Floor, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, to consider the following requests: A request by the City of Roanoke to consider and adopt updates to the Complete Streets Policy and adopt the Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan as a part of City Plan 2040, the City's comprehensive plan adopted in 2020. The Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan is designed to enhance roadway safety, aiming to eliminate fatalities and seriousinjuries by 2040 and cut them by 25% by 2030. This plan will focus on all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit users, motorists, micromobility users, and commercial vehicle drivers. Application by Douglas Devine to rezone property located at 1007 3 '/2 Street SE, bearing Official Tax Map No. 4020920, from I-1, Light Industrial District, to UF, Urban Flex District. The land use categories permitted in UF include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; industrial; warehousing and distribution; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility; agricultural; and accessory, but does not specify density. The comprehensive plan designates the property for urban flex use. The proposed use is a laundromat. Please note that this is a change in location for the May 11, 2026, Planning Commission public hearing only. Physical copies of the plan and application are available for public inspection in the Planning, Building,.& Development Department, First Floor, Room 170, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, 24011. Citizens may also access the plan and application at www.roanokeva.gov/1088. All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the Planning Commission at the public hearing. Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Planning Commission by mail to 215 Church Avenue SW, Room 170, Roanoke, VA, 24011, or by email to planningcommission@roanokeva.gov. Emily G. Clark, Secretary, City Planning Commission City Council will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid matters on Monday, May 18, 2026, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matters may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia. All persons wishing to address City Council may sign-up online at www.roanokeva.gov/council. In order to sign up, the form to speak before City Council may be accessed under the tab "Sign Up Form to Speak Before Council" on the left of the screen. For further information, you may contact the Office of the City Clerk at (540)853-2541. Cecelia F. McCoy, CMC, City Clerk The City of Roanoke Board of Zoning Appeals will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, to consider the following application: Application by Least of These Ministry to appeal a Zoning Administrator's Determination dated February 25, 2026, pertaining to the zoning use classification for property located at 420 Luck Avenue SW, bearing Official Tax Map No. 1012406. Physical copies of this application are available for public inspection in the Planning, Building, & Development Department, First Floor, Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, 24011. Citizens may also access the application at https://www.roanokeva.gov/1074. All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at the public hearing. Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals by mail to 215 Church Avenue SW, Room 170, Roanoke, VA 24011, or by email to planning@roanokeva.gov. Emily G. Clark, Secretary, City Board of Zoning Appeals The City of Roanoke will make reasonable accommodations for any person with a disability to participate in the hearing. Please contact the City Clerk's Office, (540)853- 2541, by noon, May 8, 2026, to request accommodations. The City of Roanoke provides interpretation at no cost for all public meetings, upon request. If you would like to request an interpreter, please let us know at least 24 hours in advance by calling (540) 853-1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke proporciona interpretaciOn sin costo portodas citas publicas, previa solicitud. Si usted desea solicitar un interprete, haganoslo saber con al menos 24 horas de antelaciOn por Ilamar(540) 853-1283. Jiji la Roanoke linatoa huduma ya ukalimani bila malipo katika mikutano yote ya umma, inapoombwa. Iwapo ungependa kuomba mkalimani; tafadhali tujulishe angalau saa 24 kabla kwa kupiga simu (540) 853-1283. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA The 18th day of May 2026. No. 43398-051826. AN ORDINANCE adopting updates to the Complete Streets Policy, approving the Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan, and amending City Plan 2040, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include such updates to the Complete Streets Policy and Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. WHEREAS, on July 19, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted Street Design Guidelines to provide practical approaches to applying the general design principles to create "Complete Streets;" WHEREAS, the City Council used these guidelines as the basis for the Complete Streets Policy adopted on March 17, 2008; WHEREAS, following an award of an Action Plan Grant in 2023, the process began to develop the City of Roanoke Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on April 13, 2026, left it open, continued the public hearing to May 11, 2026, and recommended adoption of the Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan; updates to the Complete Streets Policy; and amending City Plan 2040, the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of §15.2-2204, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, a public hearing was held before this Council on May 18, 2026, on the proposed Policy and Plan, at which hearing all citizens so desiring were given an opportunity to be heard and to present their views on such amendment. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Council hereby approves updates to the Complete Streets Policy; adoption of the Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan; and amends City Plan 2040, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include such Policy and Plan as an element thereof, as further set forth in the City Council Agenda Report dated May 18, 2026. 2. The City Clerk is directed to forthwith transmit attested copies of this ordinance to the City Planning Commission. 3. Pursuant to the provisions of §12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. ATTEST: -� City Clerk. ;' - ` �j �pFR`'t •- ' CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT c m To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: May 18, 2026 Subject: Complete Streets Policy Update and Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan Summary: By a vote of 5-0, with Chair Smith and Commissioner Martin absent, the Commission recommends approval of the updated policy and proposed plan to be adopted as a component of the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds the Complete Streets Policy and Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan are consistent with City Plan 2040, specifically components of the Livable Built Environment theme, Healthy Community theme, and Transportation chapter. Background: In December 2020, City Council adopted City Plan 2040. In that plan, Council recognized the need for a transportation system that provides all users with access to safe, reliable, and affordable modes, including public transit, walking, biking, and micro-mobility options such as e-scooters. Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grants are a funding opportunity offered by the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), beginning in the federal fiscal year (FFY2022). SS4A grants are awarded competitively to support planning, infrastructure, behavioral, and operational initiatives that prevent death and serious injury on roads and streets involving all roadway users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, micromobility users, motorists, and commercial vehicle operators. The three SS4A grant types offered are: Action Plan Grants, Demonstration Grants, and Implementation Grants. Action Plan Grants fund the development or completion of a holistic, well- defined strategy to prevent roadway fatalities and serious injuries in a locality, Tribe, or region. The primary deliverable for an Action Plan Grant is a publicly available Action Plan. Demonstration Grants fund "quick-build" projects that demonstrate the effectiveness of specific safety countermeasures without the higher costs of permanent infrastructure construction and maintenance. Implementation Grants fund projects and strategies identified in an.Action Plan that address roadway safety problems. Applicants for Implementation Grants must have an existing Action Plan to apply. Following a successful SS4A award of $480,000 for an Action Plan Grant in 2023, the City's Transportation Division, in collaboration with transportation safety consultant Toole Design Group, launched the data and community engagement-informed processes of developing a City of Roanoke Safety Action Plan and Speed Management Action Plan. The development was guided by a Project Advisory Committee comprised of stakeholders and subject matter experts including: Virginia Tech Transportation Institute's Center for Sustainable Mobility, Virginia Tech Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Virginia Tech Research Center's School of Public and International Affairs, Roanoke Valley-Allegheny Regional Commission's Ride Solutions, Roanoke Regional Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee, PedalSafeRoanoke, Virginia Department for the Blind and Vision Impaired, Blue Ridge Independent Living Center, Valley Metro, Bus Rider Advocate Group, Virginia Department of Health, Roanoke City Public Schools, City of Roanoke: Planning, Community Engagement, Fire/EMS, Police, Economic Development, Parks, Roanoke Arts Commission, and Equity and Empowerment, to name a few. If the Plan is adopted, the Transportation Division plans to use the Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan as a basis for future applications for Demonstration and Implementation Grants with USDOT. In 2007, the City of Roanoke adopted a street design guide approved by the Planning Commission. In 2008, these guidelines were formalized into the Complete Streets policy, and the policy has since been implemented by interdepartmental project team from the Planning, Building and Development Department, the Engineering Division and Transportation Division of the Public Works Department, and the Department of Parks and Recreation. At its adoption, the policy was intended to take a step toward implementing the active Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2001-2020. The policy was designed to empower staff to routinely plan, fund, design, construct, operate, and maintain streets according to established design principles, while retaining flexibility to deal with exceptional circumstances. The current policy includes references to Vision 2001 -2020, and it is in need of an update following the adoption of the current comprehensive plan, City Plan 2040. Proposed Plan: The proposed Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan focuses on improving safety in seven priority areas: speed, distraction and impairment, pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, schools, and culture of safety. The plan uses a tailored approach for each user and topic area to each kind of roadway. A study was conducted on each street for recent serious crashes, which is used to create a high injury network map for all streets and a high risk network map. Recommendations are included throughout the plan with a summary provided 2 for short-term, mid-term, long-term, and on-going with a cost scale and City Department lead designated for each action. The updated Complete Streets Policy aligns the policy with the terminology and actions included in the Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan and City Plan 2040. This synergy between the plans and policies will facilitate easier implementation and review of projects. The updated Policy also reflects how the process works.between the City departments and seeks to better clarify roles. Considerations: Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan and update to the Complete Streets Policy are step forward in implementing City Plan 2040. City Plan 2040 recognizes the need for a transportation system that provides all users with access to safe, reliable, and affordable modes, including public transit, walking, biking, and micro-mobility options such as e-scooters. The plan also includes reducing crashes as an action item under both the Healthy Community and Transportation System priorities. Theme: Livable Built Environment Priority Six: Interconnected Transportation System Policy 1 : Increase multimodal transportation options and usage Action Items • Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit accommodations in and between neighborhood centers • Support seamless paratransit service Policy 4: Improve safety of transportation system Action Items: • Create and implement the Vision Zero Action Plan to reduce injury and death • Base design standards for motorized vehicular systems around typical system usage throughout year, not peak periods Chapter: Transportation Priorities Priority: Great Streets Supporting Great Places Policy 2: Support complete streets projects to provide multimodal use of streets Policy 3: Reduce crashes Theme: Healthy Community Priority Two: Safety Policy 3: Ensure all streets, especially arterial streets, are designed for safe and comfortable walking and biking Action Items: • Review, update, and readopt the Complete Streets Policy and the Street Design Guidelines 3 • Consider general reductions in speed limits throughout the City, particularly in neighborhood settings • Redesign and retrofit streets to encourage slower and more appropriate vehicle speeds for the context Public Notification and Outreach: The Transportation Department, in conjunction with the consulting team from Toole Design, conducted community engagement on the plan throughout 2024. The engagement included a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) of more than 20 advisors, pop-up events, in-person meetings with stakeholders, walking audits of roads and corridors featured in the crash analysis, public meetings, and an online survey and interactive map. The project team participated in two block-party style National Night Out events, attended pop-up events with the bicycling community, and hosted a demonstration project at the 2024 GoFest event. Additionally, the project team hosted several facilitated discussions with key stakeholders in the community including with the Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates, Neighborhood Presidents group, City of Roanoke Police Department Community Policing Division, PedalSafe Roanoke, and Regional Greenways Commission. Ahead of the scheduled public hearing in both April and May, the plan was legally noticed in Cardinal News and the Roanoke Rambler, a CivicSend email notice sent to neighborhood leaders and stakeholders subscribed to notices from the Planning Commission and PBD calendar. Comments on Application: Planning Commission Work Session: The Planning Commission discussed the proposed plan during the March 6th Worksession. Commissioners generally expressed support for the plan and asked questions about community engagement and speed management. Public Comments: One written public comment has been received as of May 6, 2026. The comment expressed concern that the plan would not be achievable given existing driving behavior and City road maintenance practices. The individual highlighted specific concerns about the safety of 1-581 and the new lane configuration on Williamson Road. Public Hearing: The Planning Commission opened the public hearing for the plan during their April 1 3`h meeting. No public comments were received during the April 1 3th 4 • meeting. The Planning Commission unanimously voted in favor of granting the continuance requested by the Transportation Division. During the May 1 1 `h meeting, the Transportation Division and consultant on the project, Toole Design, did a presentation of the plan and planning process. The Commission asked questions of the team regarding creating a culture of safe driving, crash analysis data, quick build projects, proposed safety measures, and Roanoke's ranking nationally when it comes to traffic safety. Staff shared their recommendation of approval, and Planning Commission reopened the public hearing. No members of the public spoke during the hearing. Following the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed policy update and plan adoption by a 5-0 vote. Conclusions and Recommendations: Planning Commission recommends approval of the update to the Complete Streets Policy and adoption of the Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan as a component of the City's comprehensive plan. The Commission finds that the policy and plan are consistent with City Plan 2040, specifically components of the Livable Built Environment theme, Healthy Community theme, and Transportation chapter. Betty Jea Wolfe, Vice Chair City Planning Commission Distribution: Ms. Valmarie Turner, City Manager Angela O'Brien, Assistant City Manager Laura Carini, City Attorney Beverly Walkup, Interim Director of Planning, Building, and Development Katharine Gray, Planning Commission Agent Ross Campbell, Director of Public Works Ian Coffey, City Traffic Engineer 5 May 2026 Roanoke Action Plan .,, , ,,. . . . „,..., , „. _ . „_,,,,.., , ,,,.., , , ,, , . 0 Safety . .. Jibs._ ... ,, .. _ .. . _.. . * ,. .. .7 ., i - .. Jr . <„ s . . - r -,.n ry . f) r .,_ f a..3r k Acknowledgments City Council: Project Advisory Committee: Joseph L. Cobb, Mayor The following people and organizations were S.Terry McGuire, Vice-Mayor invited to be part of the Vision Zero Project Advisory Nicholas S. Hagen Committee. If an individual was unable to attend they Phazhon T. Nash were encouraged to have an alternate participate. Evelyn W. Powers Vivian Sanchez Jones Kristin Adkins, Virginia Department of Health Peter J.Volosin Amazetta Anderson,Envision Center Alison Blanton, Roanoke Preservation Foundation City Project Staff: Jennifer Boswell,Roanoke Police Department Valmarie H.Turner, City Manager Bert Boyd, EVAdvocate Vanessa Bohr, Interim Deputy City Manager Tom Carr, PedalSafe Roanoke Ross Campbell, PE, Director, Public Works Department Caitlyn Cline,Roanoke Police Department Will Crawford, VDOT Dwayne D'Ardenne, Transportation Division Manager Mandy Cribb, Roanoke Department of Ian Coffey, City Traffic Engineer Economic Development Rob Issem, Complete Streets& Vision Zero Coordinator Matthew Crookshank, Human Mason Handke, Traffic Engineer Tech Services Administration Marc Davis, Blue Ridge Independent Living Center Carol A Corbin, Communications Manager Andrea Garland, RVARC Tracy Lauder, Community Engagement Specialist Michael Gray, VDOT Molly Hunter, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Alicha Grubb,Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates Renee Powers, Trails and Greenways Coordinator Laura Hartman,Bus Riders of Roanoke Leigh Anne Weitzenfeld,Sustainability Outreach Coordinator Patrick Haynes, Roanoke Placemakers Kathryn Hedrick, Equity& Empowerment Advisory Board Landon Howard, Visit VBR Douglas Jackson, Roanoke Arts Commission Joshua n Johnson, RCPS VI c J I O 1 ,I Mark Kary, Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates ZER11. ROANOKE Information contained in this document is for planning purposes and should not be used for final design of any project.All results,recommendations,concept drawings,cost opinions,and commentary contained herein are based on limited data and information and on existing conditions that are subject to change.Existing conditions have not been field-verified. Further analysis and engineering design are necessary prior to implementing any of the recommendations contained herein. Wayne Leftwich, Roanoke Planning, Building, and Development William Long, GRTC/Valley Metro Frank Maguire, Roanoke Greenways Commission Sean McGinnis, GRTC Advisory Committee Ken McLeod, PedalSafe Roanoke Erynn Miller, Carilion Clinic Ashby Owens, Drive this Way Ron Parker, GRTC/Valley Metro Katheryn Pascal, Latinas Network Andrew Pulley, Roanoke Police Department Christopher Ramey, Roanoke Police Department Natesha Ross, The Foundry Laura Schmidt, Roanoke Emergency Management& Special Operations Ray Shanks, Roanoke Police Department Trevor Shannon, Roanoke Emergency Management& Special Operations Jeff Shawver,RCPS Shaneve Tripp, RVARC—Bicycle& Pedestrian Committee Leigh Anne Weitzenfeld,Sustainability Sara Wohlford, Carilion Clinic Tina Workman, Downtown Roanoke Inc Consultants: TOOLE DESIGN CONTENTS Executive Summary v Vision and Goals 13 Crash Summary 17 Major Findings 19 Public Input 27 Priority Issues and Focus Areas 37 Safety Measures Toolkit 39 The Role of Enforcement in Traffic Safety 41 Speed 42 Distraction and Impairment 45 Motorcyclists 47 Pedestrians 50 Bicyclists 55 School Trips and Youth Travel 60 Culture of Safety 62 Actions and Strategies 65 Metrics and Accountability 69 Next Steps 73 Conclusion 77 Roanoke Vision Zero Pledge 79 Appendix 81 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 1 All crashes in Roanoke, 2019-2023.Includes VDOT roads. 0 1 2rnl .�.�.. Xa� • % Roanoke Crashes ,'." ..1•-. .'f r (2019-2023) • XE4%4t tCEA AO IN I •• �• • '• 1 IS• . j •. • '•w t • _:f• . • ''AnT i . a''`� c • OA1f y ` • . . ti M• •ill .6 ill 0) +`p Est. �•y }•...“ tl .1 . • t I. • • • • f :S-_ \ ' ..10": .. ... ,...,r's* . • iv" . ..? . ,!' Y• • 0E • (. •� . • f . ' Legend © .y, ti' Crash Location • Fatal Crash ' • Incapacitating Injury Crash i ~•• • Minor Injury or Property Damage Only The City of Roanoke Safety Action Plan (SAP)was The sheer volume of crashes reflects a general lack initiated in the spring of 2024 and reviewed the most of safety culture in the city and beyond.This is unlikely recent five years of crash data available at the time. to change overnight and will require continual improve- Between 2019 and 2023 there were almost 9,500 ment in the traditional areas of education,enforcement, reported crashes involving motor vehicles in Roanoke— and roadway engineering for the foreseeable future. an average of at least five per day(Figure 1).While more Current street design lacks definition and encourages than 80% of these crashes resulted in minor(non-visi- speeding,failure to yield,and other behaviors that ble) injuries or property damage only,they all required contribute to a poor overall safety record.This affects police and other emergency personnel to respond;they everyone in the city.The Roanoke Safety Action Plan cause delay and frustration to other travelers; and the includes recommendations and safety measures that damage is costly to repair for all parties involved. will help to address this reality. VI I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY However,the primary focus of this document are the and motorcyclists were involved in 425 (4.5%)of the 47 fatal crashes that resulted in 49 people losing their 9,455 reported crashes in the city,however this includes lives and on the more than 300 crashes during this 140 (40%)of the 350 fatal and serious injury crashes five-year period that resulted in 350 people suffering (Figure 3).This vulnerability is even more evident when life-altering injuries(Figure 2).The annual number of looking at just the fatal crashes that occurred during the crashes and serious injuries has been rising since 2020, study period: pedestrians were involved in 18 (38%) and while the number of fatalities each year has remained motorcyclists in 11 (23%)of the 47 incidents(Figure 4). constant between nine and ten. This is even though pedestrians and motorcyclists were involved in less than 4% of all reported crashes. A detailed analysis of the crash reports reveals that pedestrians, motorcyclists,and bicyclists are espe- cially vulnerable in traffic. Pedestrians, bicyclists, Figure 2 Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes By Year 80 • 69 • 60 54 54 • • • 40 20 13 10 9 10 5 ■ 0 ■ 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 t K.Fatal Injury t A.Severe Injury Figure 3 Share of Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Figure 4 Share of Fatal Crash Involvement By Mode Involvement by Mode 18.9% 4.5% 38.3% 38.3% __dawdle_ num ■ Pedestrian • Bicycle 23.4% • Motorcycle ■ Motor Vehicle I VII The crash analysis also identified a relatively small Figure 6 High Risk Network percentage of city streets where most fatal or serious injury collisions are concentrated-this is the High Injury Network(HIN)(Figure 5). Figure 5 High Injury Network ' ROA -' - l'A `ir--- .' AfARO..RT F ,, ,, )?.., ,..„0" ,.. . .' -, 1 .. y. _ N.,, ././-7 a 4 ,.,, 5 lj as _. "'.• " \!\ ' , ti 5 f GG _„.1 111111111111111116. 141 4i 4 ' . ^, V'Y'ON - 10 High Risk Network „£, Level of Risk i C,11,C&I ,i gt, ---Medium a a 1,® w 1 it ►J High Injury Network Figure 7 Focus Areas By looking at the roadway conditions and context of streets on the HIN it is possible to predict where crashes 4- are most likely to happen in the future,based on the pres- : '° ence of those same conditions(e.g.four lane,undivided highways with no sidewalks or safe crossings,and poor y lighting).This is the High Risk Network(HRN)(Figure 6). • r Taken together,the HIN and HRN help to identify major trj '' '--",' streets,intersections,and areas of the city where the crash history and risk is the highest.These are .� :`, the locations where the city should focus its efforts to " ��- • eliminate the most serious crashes from happening to ;. achieve the goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries • (Figure 7). So,while the goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries • from traffic crashes may be aspirational today,it is Priority Locations • Irtersec,+x'w rays critically important for the future of the city,and it is —c..,mcrcocos It t within reach.The Safety Action Plan is designed to usher Area K Foco — H dh Inpy Ne:wak in a culture of safety that is embraced by all government $ SUM I 71- 0 departments and agencies and championed by commu- nity organizations across the city. VIII I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Community and stakeholder input provided another crit- Figure 8 HIN and Underserved Communities ical source of data in the development of the plan. Input was gathered from people at events such as National Night Out; a series of Walk Audits in all four quadrants of the city;stakeholder meetings with the police, ROA neighborhood associations,and local organizations; ' and through an on-line survey and interactive map that \,,,, generated hundreds of comments.This outreach con- firmed the importance of speed and distracted/impaired driving as a top community concern. Indeed,the police department shared that,whenever they are called out and for whatever the initial reason, residents want to • talk about neighborhood traffic issues such as speed. ;F . Public input and the crash analysis also highlighted the / - negative effects of missing sidewalks,crosswalks,and r' protected cycling infrastructure for the most vulnerable road users. Basic issues of fairness emerge from a situation where people living in areas of persistent poverty who are least likely to be able to afford a motor vehicle are also most likely to have to navigate the most dangerous streets without safe,comfortable,or acces- sible facilities.There is a strong overlap between these "s110 7D atl'"'' Tracts ' 0 communities and streets on the High Injury Network (Figure 8).The plan recommends prioritizing implemen- tation in these areas. ammia• aft ' u,w4Ythe wMy?,*....ra..eo„s aw,rake ®�^ WI,KeWUer•Oeh�,+•.arethw fxta,.ntM re+,wry Solutions in the Safety Action Plan are organized around ,,,. ( «• �•.. « .,, tmpa H Mi.•np seven Priority Issues: •••••••• • :•..... �,,.:.tea..,•., • Culture of Safety • I I•••• ••••••• SNNAt �..•.+vrwa wen • Speed ••••• N • •• i kpew..N..ip • Distraction/Impairment I I•• •• • Motorcyclists •• ••••••••••• = • Pedestrians • ••• .• I *oils • """^_ •••••••s• • Bicyclists • • Schools VISION _ ROAANOKE " Implementing solutions to address these issues will complement the City's vision as a safe,caring,and Community feedback board from stakeholder event economically vibrant community in which to live, learn, work, play,and prosper. I IX Figure 9 Recommended Safety Measures Measure Relevance Application Measure Relevance Application N a N N o N N a O U) gp c c - C N c c O ea N .0 N L O COCU) 0 t I- a >. U) L u Ov L L N L ON) U L 0 L -0 N L 0 f0 N N L L -_0 4) .O y a G. o L — L N 01 a) .L. m T O O L L Of cn o o_ G. X cn c') U z in o a m X c'� ci E z Corner Protected Radius x x x x x Mobility Lane x II Reduction Protected "lull' Crossin g x x x x xIntersection Island/Median Raised Crossing IIIIIIIIIIIIIII x Curb Extensions x x x x Raised IIIIIIIIIII Curb Ramps x x x x x x Intersection II x x Daylight Remove Intersections x x x x x x Slip Lanes IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII x Hardened lin Roadway 111111111111111111111 Centerline x x x x x Reconfiguration High Visibility x x x x x H Roundabout 11...111111111111 Crosswalk IIIIII x RRFB Horizontal Deflection x x x x y 1111 x Leadin Safet CamerasII , 9 Pedestrian x x x x Shared Street 111111111:111111111111 x Interval iiui© x Sidewalk Mobility Track x x x p p IIIIIEIMIIIIIIIII x Speed Humps Neighborway x x x x Speed Limit lull,,! xNo Right ReductionTurn on Redx x x Traffic Circle IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII x Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon x x x x x 11111111111111 Traffic Diverters x Visual Narrowing x x x x x x x A toolbox of 30 proven safety countermeasures The SAP also includes a stand-alone micromobility is provided in Appendix C of the Safety Action network plan that can be used by the City to prioritize Plan—these safety measures were selected development of a micromobility network that is con- based on their relevance and effectiveness in nected to the greenway system.Safety is the key to addressing roadway design issues that contribute getting more people riding and walking. to Roanoke's particular traffic safety problems. X I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Figure 10 Sample Action Item from the proposed Actions and Strategies Short-term Lead Support Measure Notes Relevance Cost Actions Purchase a Completed Would enable wider selection small street Stormwater Transportation Purchase of safety measures; needs Bicyclist $$ sweeper driver training The final sections of the Safety Action Plan recommend such as the U.S. Department of Transportation Safe specific actions and strategies the City should pursue to Streets and Roadways for All program continue to be hasten implementation of these proven safety mea- available. However,the greatest progress can be made sures. Nearly 50 specific actions are organized by short, by embracing the Safe System Approach in the way the medium,and long-term implementation timelines and city invests existing funding, programs, policies,and by lead agency. procedures.This is a different way of doing business: there is a laser-focus on saving lives and preventing The plan also includes a commitment to produce an catastrophic traffic crashes that affect dozens of annual report and Vision Zero dashboard on the city Roanoke families every year. website to track progress and ensure accountability. Fatal and serious injury traffic crashes are preventable, Implementation of the plan will no doubt be possible in a and this Safety Action Plan is the blueprint to prevent or shorter timeframe if new and external funding sources mitigate the most serious of them. VISION Fatalities ZERO ROANOKE r ' . . - 40 a...w... • ate.-vwearrJp,-, �.,_ • L u.[�w..b.ea.�e.n.e..0 - •r� Q 2 . -4 Se•icus lnj..•ies Illim _„ . .�; * •.....,.a..•. • .♦ --U- .s•' r ,. • Safety Action Plan Dashboard I XI THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. VISION AND GOALS The City of Roanoke is committed to eliminating blame the victim or driver of a motor vehicle involved fatal and serious injury crashes on city roadways in a fatal or serious injury crash;we must change the by 2040. system to make deadly collisions virtually impossible. This is an ambitious goal.Traffic safety is a significant The Safe System Approach requires a holistic,multi-dis- national concern as more than 40,000 people lose their ciplinary commitment to changing how we plan,design lives in crashes every year in the United States. People and operate our transportation system.This comple- on foot and on bike are an increasing share of that total'. ments and supports many of the goals at the heart of the For too long,this death toll has been accepted as inev- City's comprehensive plan and other guiding documents. itable,as the consequence of our mobile, modern-day Figure 12 FHWA Safe System Approach lifestyle.Yet in countries all over the world,in stark contrast to the United fic ties are dramatically because of thesSafefSysteml falling Approach to �P.a1S�R�DUS INJURY IS(JAI, traffic safety(Figure 11). o y The Safe System Approach (Figure 12)does not con- `44 Ott 15 kV& W fill* 4., sider fatal and serious traffic crashes to be inevitable. Safe 3 . Safe ersad Vehicles vm In fact,it states that they are entirely preventable and 2 Q that we have both the tools and the responsibility to stop Z THE `ii them from happening, as soon as possible.Similarly, o * I , SAFE SYSTEM x n (1) the Safe System Approach assumes that individualm APPROACH human error is inevitable and that we should strive to v Post-Crash Safe LAJ ensure the consequences of a mistake will not result in �A� Care Speeds 4' �4- someone losing their life.Once we accept this principle, A /®\ Jv we can no longer simplySafe 15o9c�). Roads P��li- RFSp6INSMILITY IS SNARE NJ Figure 11 Traffic Deaths per 100,000 Inhabitants, International Comparison.OECD. United States 15 l Germany Canada Denmark Niii \ Japan �`` _ Sweden ��� Mexico—} _ 5 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 1 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ ViewPublication/813705 14 I VISION AND GOALS Fairness:Traffic danger disproportionately affects the Safer streets can lower the costs and stress of driving most vulnerable in society. Many of the most dangerous while making the system work better for everyone. roads in Roanoke go through communities with the Academic performance,physical and mental wellbeing, highest levels of poverty,the lowest percentage of and access to human services all benefit from streets people with access to a motor vehicle, and the highest that encourage physical activity—which can only percentage of people with limited access to healthcare happen if people feel safe crossing the street,strolling and other basic services. Making the streets safer through the neighborhood, riding their bike to school,or in these communities will expand safe and dignified taking the bus downtown. access to transit,jobs,services, recreation facilities, This Vision Zero Safety Action Plan is an opportunity shopping,schools and other critical destinations. to save lives,improve the quality of life for Roanoke Quality of Life: Roanoke is committed to a sustainable residents,and eliminate economic and social disparities and healthy future.A sustainable urban transportation that continue to blight the community.The plan comple- system includes walking, biking,and taking the bus ments ongoing community planning initiatives around as comfortable,economical,and attractive options. Envision Williamson Road,the City's Neighborhood Well used active transportation options reduce motor Revitalization Initiatives(Target Areas),and the intro- vehicle congestion,reduce air pollution,increase duction of a speed management plan and bikeway community health, and improve the safety of all street network plan. users. Making the streets safer in Roanoke will increase So,while the goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries people's travel choices and ensure everyone can move from traffic crashes may be aspirational today, it is around the community in safety and with dignity. critically important for the future of the city,and it is Health and Safety: Keeping people safe and healthy is within reach.The Safety Action Plan is designed to a fundamental responsibility of government. Obesity usher in a culture of safety that is embraced by all and traffic crashes are among the biggest contributors government departments and agencies and championed to premature death in Roanoke and communities by community organizations across the city. across Virginia and the United States—increasing safety saves lives by eliminating traffic crashes AND by enabling more people to be physically active as part of their daily routine. Safety:A Promise to Roanoke Residents and Visitors Safety is a fundamental promise of Roanoke's vision, mission,and strategic goals.The City Council's seven priorities include Safety.The mission statement of the City is to be a safe,caring,and economically vibrant community in which to live,work, play,and prosper.This vision cannot be realized without making our streets safe for people to use.The Safety Action Plan identifies the ways in which the goal of safety can be achieved. Safe Streets are the hallmark of good government. Just as importantly,the steps that we take to make our streets safe will also help realize every other part of that vision.Safe,welcoming streets are essential to create a vibrant urban center and economically vibrant community.The ability of people to enjoy the spectacu- lar beauty of Virginia's Blue Ridge is only possible if city streets are safe enough for people who walk,ride a bike, or use a motorcycle. 1 15 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. CRASH SUMMARY There were 9,455 reported crashes involving Inside the Data motor vehicles in Roanoke in the five years from 2019 to 2023(Figure 13). While most of these The data used in this study is generated from crash crashes resulted in property damage only, there reports written by Roanoke Police Department were 47 fatal crashes that resulted in the deaths Officers who are called to the scene of every colli- of 49 people - an average of almost ten fatalities sion in the city.These reports are forwarded to the every year. There were 306 serious crashes that Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles and shared left 350 people with life-altering injuries -and with the Virginia Department of Transportation. average of 70 victims with serious injuries per There are some limitations with the data.Crash year(Figure 14). reports are only included if a motor vehicle is involved in the collision and the collision occurs on The trends are not good.The number of crashes a public road.This means that,for example,a crash has been rising steadily since 2020 and while fatal involving a bicyclist hitting a pothole does not get crashes have been level at ten per year,the number of counted.Crashes in shopping center and private serious injury crashes has risen sharply since 2019. parking lots are not included. Roanoke numbers closely track national trends, but Reported crashes between 2019 and 2023 were a detailed analysis of five years of crashes helped to used in this study. Data from 2022 and 2023 is still reveal issues that are more unique to Roanoke,as well subject to change-for example, because of details as confirming several significant priority areas that are emerging from crash investigations completed as common in communities across the country. part of legal proceedings.This means there may be small discrepancies between the data in this report Figure 13 Annual Total Number of All Crashes and on the VDOT website. However,the benefit of 2500 —- 2 255 having data for additional post-COVID years of 2022 2,037 and 2023 (rather than data from 2017 and 2018) 2000 1,749 1,784 outweighed these potential changes. 1,630 1500 1000 From the Community 500 "I have had 3 friends injured by cars. One in a 0 crosswalk,one walking in their neighborhood 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 street, and another walking on a neighborhood street without sidewalks!" Figure 14 Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes By Year United States 15 - Germany Canada Denmark 10 Japan Sweden Mexico J � L_ 5 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 18 I CRASH SUMMARY Major' Findin S Figure 16 Share of Fatal and Serious Injury Crash Involvement by Mode Some road users are more vulnerable than others. Motor vehicles were the only party involved in more than 9,000 of the 9,455 total crashes. Most of these 18.9% collisions(more than 80%) resulted in property damage only or very minor injuries. Less than 2.5% resulted 4.5% in a fatal or serious injury. By contrast, pedestrians, motorcyclists,and bicyclists were involved in far fewer 60.5% crashes overall, but the consequences were starkly dif- ferent: more than one-third of all the crashes involving • Pedestrian people on foot, motorcycle,or bicycle resulted in death or serious injury(Figure 15). • Bicycle f s' ■ Motorcycle Pedestrians and bicyclists were involved in less than ■ Motor Vehicle 3% of all crashes but accounted for nearly a quarter (23.4%) of fatal and serious injuries in the city(Figure Figure 17 Share of Fatal Crash Involvement by Mode 16). Motorcyclists accounted for 16% of fatal and serious injury victims but were involved in less than 2% of crashes overall.This disparity is even more distinct when looking at just the fatal crashes. Pedestrians were involved in 38% of fatal crashes,the same as motor 38�3% 38.3% vehicle occupants; motorcyclists were involved in 23% of fatal crashes. No bicyclists were killed during this five-year period(Figure 17). • Pedestrian 23.4% • Bicycle • Motorcycle ■ Motor Vehicle Figure 15 Outcome of Crash Involvement By Mode 90% 80% 78.9 a) 70%ro — (r) 60% 57.4 � 50% n L • 40% 37.0 tn 33. . ro v 30% 2676 -28.9__ 24A 20% / 1674 10%-8.8 / 9.8I -;iI:' / 4.2 b-4 0% ■ 0 0 • 0 ■ _2 0.2 Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle Motor Vehicle • Fatal • Serious Injury ■Visible Injury • Non-visible Injury ■ Property Damage Only MAJOR FINDINGS 119 The most serious crashes occur at intersections and on Figure 18 Speeding and Distracted Driving Involvement major roads.More than half of fatal and serious injury 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% crashes occurred at intersections,and the percentage is even higher for motorcyclists and bicyclists(56%andMO 1 7% 75% respectively).The numbers are likely even higher as Alcohol more than 30%of crash reports list the location as"other/ ■ 6% unknown".The majority of fatal and serious injury crashes happened on main roads(arterials),including more than 70%of pedestrian and motorcycle crashes.Bicyclists 20% were more likely to be involved in a serious collision on a Distracted local road or neighborhood street. o 22/o Speeding,distracted,and impaired(alcohol)driving are significant factors(Figure 18).Speed was the single greatest contributing factor in fatal and serious I 1% injury crashes in Roanoke during this period.More than Drowsy one-third (35%)of these incidents involved one or more I 1% speeding vehicle,which is slightly above the national average of 29% in 20222.Distracted driving was identified as the contributing cause in the greatest share(22%)of ■ 4% all crashes,as well as almost 20%of fatal and serious Drugs injury crashes.Alcohol use was implicated in more than I 1% 15%of fatal and serious injury crashes. Other factors such as time of day,lighting,and weather 35% conditions are largely consistent with national data3. Speed Most crashes occur in dry,clear conditions.The late 15% afternoon (3-6pm)saw the highest concentration of fatal and serious injury crashes (25.5%) for all road users, especially bicyclists(50%) and motorcyclists (39%). • Killed and Serious Injured • All Severity Pedestrians were more likely to be involved in a fatal or serious injury collision between 6pm and 9pm,when more than 30% of such crashes occurred. From the Community From the Community "Cities that improve safety and walkability/ "We need to design streets to encourage bikeability have a higher quality of life...I'd love driving at lower speeds in accordance with to not even have a car and use public transport." research.At a speed of 18mph pedestrians hit by a vehicle can mostly survive.As vehicles travel faster that chance drops dramatically. This is more than just posted speed limits." 2 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Aoi/Public/ ViewPublication/813582 3 Traffic Safety Facts 2022: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data. NHTSA 2024 20 I CRASH SUMMARY Where Are Serious Crashes Happening in Roanoke? The traditional approach to responding to traffic crashes As a result,crashes keep happening.The most serious has been to plot the location of all crashes on a map, crashes continue to happen in locations across the city identify the place where the greatest number of dots where similar conditions exist—for example,pedestrian appear on the map,and take appropriate actions to try fatalities occur on multi-lane arterial roads with posted and eliminate crashes there in the future. speeds of 30 mph and above.The Safe System Approach is designed to break this cycle and tackle the systemic The limitation of this"hot-spot" approach is that it: causes of the most serious crashes in a proactive,rather a. treats all crashes as equally important than a reactive,way. regardless of severity, The map below shows all reported crashes in Roanoke, b. over-emphasizes solutions that are focused including on 1-581,US 220,and US 419 between 2019 on motor vehicles(e.g.creating faster,wider, and 2013 (Figure 19).The picture is overwhelming.The straighter roads),and crash analysis that follows removes crashes on non- c. fails to address the root cause of crashes. city streets(noted above)and focuses on the fatal and serious injury crashes as the top priority. Figure 19 All Crashes,All Roads.VDOT. 0 1 2 mi ..#' { ii/oce i n, Roanoke Crashes k . ` a__ .' t (2019-2023) .- .i., . a ..... •4/ • , II448ENGtR PO NM ♦ +•, �' ••j A. �• • • • .e,°ems , `)♦•r•. • •• •• z r T 4� •• -, .0, '• F .•, _ • ♦ f ,_ • }• OPr,• • '•• ,'�� • fAVE.YW •�� � .. �• ' • • yam.. ire/ qir,J o's'. • 'l• • • • 4\: A ..,--, e ...e..../.„.-.:1, . • T •I' Legend © `` • • `y. :: •,' Crash Location • !' • Fatal Crash • Incapacitating Injury Crash • Minor Injury or Property Damage Only MAJOR FINDINGS 1 21 The High Injury Network One way to go beyond the traditional hot-spot crash High Injury Network maps were also created for pedes- analysis is to identify a High Injury Network(HIN) map trians, bicyclists, motorcyclists,and motorists individu- that focuses on segments of street network where the ally.These maps,and the overall map,focused attention highest number of fatal and serious injury crashes occur on several of the main streets(arterials) in the city (Figure 20).This provides a bigger-picture perspective including Orange Avenue, Melrose Avenue,Williamson on the streets and intersections with the highest con- Road, Hershberger Road, Brandon Road,Jamison and centration of the worst crashes in the city over the past Bullitt Avenues,and 13th Street.There was also a five years.This can be used to identify locations where it notable concentration of streets on the HIN in downtown is appropriate to make changes to the street to prevent Roanoke and the neighborhoods either side of Orange similar crashes from happening in the future. Avenue NW between 10th and 22nd streets,driven in large part by pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries. Figure 20 Roanoke High Injury Network _ `F�-AO RSA , .,,c(,-.,,.,.t2.,- a_ r Ytiw AIRPORT \r.i is w y �k. ,tr, �a SALEM - t ``y ifl .. 4 or /j VINTON \ '-- U "" fit i .. 1/4 High Injury Network All Modes HIN 0 0 5 ,m, I r 14 I 22 I CRASH SUMMARY The High Risk Network The HIN effectively captures what has happened in the This can be used to identify systemic changes to the immediate past.The HIN was also analyzed to identify street network that need to be made whenever the any common conditions that exist on roadway segments opportunity presents itself, as well as elements of street on the HIN—for example,the land use context,number design that should be avoided in the future. For exam- of lanes,or posted speed limit.The High Risk Network ple, right-turn slip lanes are a feature of the intersec- map (Figure 21) identifies locations throughout the tions that appear on the HIN and HRN and are known to city where those same conditions exist and where it is increase risk for pedestrians and bicyclists nationwide. reasonable to anticipate that serious crashes are likely to happen in the future. Figure 21 Roanoke High Risk Network fk asc�A 4. ROA t AIRPORT o'' l 1 w, ccc o � RcAN' q?� w HERSHB , G oZ i II t Jar: 0. 4. 4-71 SALEM Rostov. ; en p6. R aN 41 1 —AV NW f VlNTON 4140r41111111 lir 7 ..' ti_I y �BRANDON AVE (`� \. 1 .F z ei 2. High Risk Network , Level of Risk Critical ims High -- Medium 0 0 5 1 m, 0 III i I MAJOR FINDINGS 123 The HRN is dominated by main streets in the city that It also includes streets with fewer reported crashes in have some or all of the following characteristics: the last five years but with all the conditions for serious • Four or more travel lanes collisions in the future.These included Elm Avenue and Jamison Avenue SE between South Jefferson Street and • Posted speeds of 30 mph or higher 13th Street, and Franklin Road SW between 2nd Street • Missing sidewalks and curb ramps and Reserve Road. • Missing crosswalks • Limited or no micromobility infrastructure Intersections • On a bus route Brandon Avenue and Brambleton Avenue Brandon Avenue and Franklin Road Streets that emerged as having the highest relative risk included some of the same streets as were on the HIN Brandon Avenue and Main Street such as Williamson Road NE between Orange Avenue Dale Avenue and 13th Street and Liberty Road,and Orange Avenue NW between 10th Franklin Road and Wonju Street Street and Lafayette Boulevard. Grandin Road and Brandon Avenue Gus Nicks Blvd and Orange Avenue Neighborhoods Hershberger Road and Cove Road Downtown Melrose Avenue and Lafayette Blvd Melrose-Rugby and Loudon-Melrose Orange Avenue and 24th Street Williamson Road and Oakland Blvd Orange Avenue and Burrell/Gainsboro Crystal Spring Ave and 22nd Street Orange Avenue and Williamson Belmont Williamson Road and 10th Street Grandin Village Williamson Road and Hershberger Road Cove Road and Lafayette Blvd Williamson Road and Liberty Road Corridors From To 10th Street Williamson Road NE Campbell Avenue SW Brambleton Avenue Brandon Avenue SW SW City limit(Cave Spring) Brandon Avenue Franklin Road SE SW City limit (Salem) Burrell Street Liberty Road NW Orange Avenue, NW Cove Road Lafayette Blvd NW Hershberger Road, NW Dale Avenue SE City limit(Vinton) 13th Street SE (Vinton) Franklin Road South Jefferson Street US 220,SW Gainsboro Road Orange Avenue NW Salem Avenue,SW Gus Nicks Boulevard Orange Avenue NE SE City limit(Vinton) Hershberger Road Williamson Road NE Peters Creek Road NW Jamison & Bullitt Avenues 13th Street SE Williamson Road SE Jefferson Street Franklin Road SE McLanahan Street,SE Lafayette Blvd Melrose Avenue NW Cove Road, NW Liberty Road Plantation Road NE Burrell Street NW Melrose Avenue 20th Street NW NW City limit (Salem) Memorial Ave &Grandin Rd SW Campbell Avenue SW Brandon Road,SW Orange Avenue(US 460) NE City limit 20th Street NW Williamson Road Hershberger Road NE South Jefferson Street 24 I CRASH SUMMARY Conclusion These Focus Areas can be used to prioritize the invest- ment of existing City funds,especially when overlaid The crash data identified the types of crashes and the with other policy priorities.They can also support grant geographic location of crashes that result in the highest applications from State and Federal sources such as number and greatest risk of fatal and serious injury the Highway Safety Improvement Program (VDOT)and collisions in Roanoke.Based on this analysis,the City Safe Streets and Roadways for All(USDOT) program. has identified Focus Areas comprising 18 corridors or street segments, 15 intersections,and 7 neighborhoods These are not the only places where City invest- (areas that cover more than just one street or intersec- ments are currently scheduled or planned,and the tion)where future investments are likely to have the City will continue to seize opportunities to make greatest safety benefits.These locations are shown in changes to streets in the city whenever they arise. Figure 22 and listed in the table on the previous page. However,when there is an opportunity to prioritize or choose between potential projects,these Focus Areas should be a useful tool and data-source. Figure 22 Roanoke Focus Areas ROA AIRPORT —' i * . • ; \11., � f t SALEM ?„..., ° 1 tIf° e . IAfl :I • •,7 w y : e --'` • VINTON 7401.1741011 4 4 • i 1 r 11,4t•-----\\,_ to r1 lir Priority Locations '.\\***\ 4 o Intersection Focus Corridor Focus Area-wide Focus High Injury Network 0 os 1 mi Schools I I I 1 1 Q MAJOR FINDINGS 125 inaNI Miand The story of traffic safety in Roanoke is only The Project Advisory partially told by the crash data. Police-reported Committee crash information doesn't reflect near misses, the streets and intersections people avoid because A Project Advisory Committee(PAC)met six times they feel unsafe, the short trips forgone or driven during the development of the Safety Action Plan.A because there isn't a safe place to walk or bike, group of more than 20 advisors,including numerous or the undignified and hostile experience of city and regional agencies as well as representatives having no choice but to walk or bike along busy of several community-based organizations, helped streets with no sidewalks or crosswalks. establish the vision and goals for the plan,assisted The best way to capture these experiences is to with outreach and gathering community input, talk to people in the community,gather their stories and reviewed progress along the way.Committee firsthand,walk in their shoes,and ask them to share members were also asked to contribute actions and their insights.Community engagement and outreach strategies to which their agencies or organizations activities included pop-up events,in-person meetings were able to commit as part of the overall plan.The with stakeholders,walking audits of roads and corridors PAC added valuable perspectives to the development featured in the crash analysis, public meetings, and an of the plan and will be asked to continue meeting as a Online survey and interactive map.A Project Advisory task force to monitor progress and help hold the city Committee provided invaluable guidance and input accountable for implementation. throughout the development of the plan. The following summary of outreach activities is drawn .. ,�- V from a detailed engagement report that is available in Appendix B. — Roano ch1e ye�,ISiu.— " ne how r `� "'' ghson nde _ —• w J 1• 5a Wieou our roadway 01 lS _ „wo THE E . SYSTEM , (.,z\'1 , . , 1 i?•(,- _-)Kk V t APPROACH ne�, 14+ THIS PLANWILL. e { • i} t, a, #' . ,*- � I SS9r1.5I 1k4t'`.*. � 01. . ..,:t: ^ , Tdf-Perm(i Aa 4 ' 9, a .r..--- - _ y • i , fit r •,' -� -� � =' . ,-, i 7 iiit ..„. .. , A S' 4,i‘frii,:t A (.1: . 9� i 28 I PUBLIC INPUT Nat i o n a I Night Out Among the solutions offered by people were: • Neighborhood traffic calming such as speed cushions The project team participated in two block-party style and mini traffic circles National Night Out events at McCadden Park NW in the . Crosswalks and pedestrian signals at Melrose-Rugby neighborhood and at Fire Station#8 on major intersections Crystal Spring Avenue in Southeast Roanoke. People • visiting the Vision Zero booth at these events were Much needed culture change to discourage speeding invited to share their thoughts and concerns on traffic and running red lights safety issues in the neighborhood and were encouraged • Increased visibility for pedestrians in crosswalks to take the Online survey. Participants used stickers to • Lighting,especially in areas where people are com- rank conditions and behaviors that cause most concern, muting after dark and shared a variety of solutions they would use to • Improved maintenance,especially to address poor eliminate fatal and serious injuries on city streets. pavement conditions and overgrown sidewalks • . + I ii:Ir k. ' , `. * tr r x i MO ',. , ��� • {�e :r � .� q �.� mitt • , 1 ' , jj f . 7 -ii \ (N, ' - s t .. . „: ,..., ...,4. I,,: n r',,r Af A t 1 -j-11..., " IANOKE f 111111111111=taill1111 - i -:''''- --' Ir hat are the biggest issues that make you feel U N Sr F E on .. tanoke s streets?(Please Which of these ')` � `•• ma.,, place next to your tap WORRY youm R�e� ?. ride streets ',worse �.A � Impaired drive •••••••• lumber of driveways and intersections Distracted drier • •••• ,. .,. soorvisibility/hard to see when s eedin Share your thoughts on how Roanoke can eliminate fatal and siniout from a driveway or side street P g •••• severe injuries on our roadways and achieve VISION ZERO! Poor street lighting I y / •• Aggressive drivit rots f 14_AL).- . :04 khoir •• • P At) \ CC/ �4.P s4 wakr! No sidewalks or IQ i�t Sole Syr r places to bike ( .:: :,buses,an ,b,„,t1+• ^.^'.,, e 4-/ r`e ••• •••• •••• ••• <+,05'' ¢J Dangerous intersections .. Sighs i Failure to stop or t ; �, -ta* • ••• _• •••• Pai�+�r ��4!u9`44'to y7 r- : ,, ,.,. No crosswalks or IiPKS an \ r SPd� r..e k3.nnkot, `yam'T"— x pedestriansignals ••• Something else la, all /ba f T c'�°� t� 1 ' z. MS 1 tr.-0,Qe I i ISC ... MAJOR FINDINGS 129 Stakeholder Meetin s '` w The project team hosted several facilitated discussions t € with key stakeholders in the community. , Members of the Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates (RNA)confirmed the importance of traffic safety to every neighborhood association in the city and identified ways ' °' '` in which the RNA could continue to participate in the 'Aar'- development of the plan.One follow-up was a presen- r tation and discussion at the September Neighborhood m. Presidents Meeting where specific concerns were raised about traffic safety in their neighborhoods either side of Orange Avenue to the west of 1-581. The Roanoke Police Department Community Policing Division shared their unique insight into traffic safety issues in the community, including the reality that speeding issues are brought up in virtually every inter- action they have with members of the public regardless x iir ,, r1` I* of the original reason for the call out.They identified " the particular vulnerability of people experiencing (, /s f homelessness as a concern,because of their exposure tsto z to traffic danger at all hours of the day and night.They ' I ,: 'i ‘ also noted the positive impact of engineering interven ;,:; ; tions such as the roundabout at 13th Street SE and Wise t Avenue SE in bringing down speeds. PedalSafe Roanoke and the Regional Greenways Commission hosted a well-attended community meet- 00 ing and PedalSafe also devoted one of their monthly meetings to providing input into potential routes on the , proposed Micromobility Network Vision Plan. There was coordination with the Envision Williamson . Road(EWR) project throughout the development of e the plan,including a presentation and discussion at one of the regular EWR Steering Committee meetings. Top destinations people said they would like to be able Williamson Road, NE is featured prominently in the to access by bike included: crash analysis as it is the site of numerous pedestrian • fatalities and serious injury crashes in recent years. Downtown Roanoke • Grocery Stores Input from the bicycling community was also gathered during two pop-up events that coincided with popular • Park and Recreation Areas—e.g., Roanoke Greenways, local evening rides hosted by Cardinal Bike Shop and Carvins Cove,and Dr.Pepper Park Big Lick Brewing. Participants consistently expressed • Schools concern that they don't feel safe on major streets in • Brandon/Brambleton Area the city,are only comfortable riding in groups or with • Carillon Memorial Hospital others,and want to be able to ride for everyday trips • West End Farmer's Market as well as recreational and social rides. 30 I PUBLIC INPUT Demonstration Project VISION - Your input Roanoke's annual GoFest provided an excellent opportu is valuable! nity to gather input for the proposed micromobility network 0 it f El and to demonstrate in real time what dedicated space for We are working toward • r —. people on bikes can feel like.South Jefferson Street (from safer streets. z,r Elm Avenue to Riverside Circle)was chosen as a location to ..:• •1 • test a design that might be applicable in locations through- ❑ :1131 out the city. Drivers and cyclists were encouraged to share their feedback on the installation (Figure 23). Feedback 114 ' ' was also gathered at a booth at the event. Jefferson Street Demonstration Project Figure 23 Summary of GoFest responses by user type 1% 4% 5% • 28% Driving(Iche. ISA o Walking Bicycling 68/o 89% 97% • It feels better than before the demonstration • It feels same as it was before the demonstration It feels worse than it was before the demonstration It felt safer on a bicycle because ° of the mobility lanes 65/0 It felt like the intersections made 56% sense for everyone I felt safer crossing the street because 40% of the shorter crossing distances I felt like I could see people walking and bicycling more easily while driving I felt like the intersections were confusing 9�JQa MAJOR FINDINGS 131 Walking Tours The project team hosted four"walk audits"to see routes,and participants reviewed recent infrastructure firsthand some of the most challenging corridors in investments—such as the 9th Avenue SE Mobility the city. Members of the community were invited to join Track and street art project on Salem Turnpike, NW—to the educational walks to share their experiences.The learn how these investments have changed conditions. walks identified safety problems and concerns along the Summarized comments included: Southeast Roanoke: Belmont neighborhood • Curb extensions and chicanes along Bullitt and Jamison a a '} 9Avenues have slowed traffic but vehicle speeds are still O 9. perceived as high. 9 p • People park on the sidewalk(frequently blocking it P entirely),likely because of vehicle speeds and the fear of ® being sideswiped. • Wide turning radii and slip lanes at 13th Street SE and Jamison Avenue create long,exposed 9 a' Walk pedestrian crossings. Start V •• Most people riding bikes use the sidewalk. B ' 0 • The team witnessed the aftermath of a multi-vehicle crash 9 p B' at 9th Street and Bullitt Avenue. 9 Southwest Roanoke: Franklin Road and Broadway Corridor • The skewed intersection at McClanahan and Franklin 1 (and other nearby intersections),the angle of the traffic Walk lights,and lack of pedestrian signals, make it difficult for a Start'-',:-...... pedestrian to know when it is safe to cross. • Sidewalks end abruptly on Wiley Drive just before Franklin Road and on McClanahan Street 4, o p+•c3 2 at Jefferson Street. • Despite being posted as 25 MPH,the wide lanes and y{ sparsely used on-street parking on Avenham Avenue 5d, 3 invite higher speeds. Mellow Mos!�room® ,}t' ,sec Restorat�oo Utoect Rcaooke ar�marvca,e • • Franklin Road is difficult to cross.There are no pedestrian y Sweet G,. •.ee = signals at the intersections with Broadway/Wonju St or cup McCalanahan/Brandon Ave. s,,N 44, • Mobility lanes on Franklin Road are unprotected and 5 e,oa Y=" adjacent to high speed, high-volume travel lanes; this makes them uncomfortable for most riders. ,o ''hs�Su. • Salem Turnpike has high truck traffic. y 4 `f �, z,, 32 I PUBLIC INPUT Northwest Roanoke: Salem Turnpike and Melrose Avenue _,, t • Crossings distances at the intersection of Salem Turnpike and 24th Street are long and exposed,even with the M14'' o'ry= recent painted curb extensions. People are still choosing to cross away from the intersections. 9 ..,. q •• Slip lanes at 24th Street and Melrose Avenue mean ." 5 C _ pedestrians have to cross fast moving traffic. 0 Q • The median on Melrose Avenue is too narrow for a turning • p 4-' vehicle to safely wait to make a turn and has no refuge • • = - space for people on foot or bike trying to cross. • 9 t"' • There are no marked crosswalks on Melrose Avenue. • S a • ,. • Speeding was identified as an ongoing issue by • G 3 local residents. I Q 9 • Mobility lanes on Melrose do not feel comfortable,even • . • with a double stripe,for less confident riders. 9 • ,.,�..,,•,:,• •Q•e•• ' .__ 1 a. 2 Northeast Roanoke: Williamson Road Corridor r V • Williamson Road sidewalks are in poor condition and have P ® YAROIEV 0�• �m gaps and missing curb ramps. 4 SQUARE '< 9 ';" N."` \ • People frequently cross midblock because of missing tes Airport ',,,T"�~' crosswalks,and lack of signals and safe options at ,d S5. ''. intersections and bus stops. } -R,aC L ovary = ® • High vehicle speeds,weaving traffic,and left-turning me25ultesMIby _ movements combine to create a chaotic roadway for all 1111Ori ROOke 3 Williamson Road users. Nall O® ,.Gnil _ DY • Hershberger Road has no pedestrian signals or marked f crosswalks at major intersections. Mobility lanes could be 'ty o T,enda La Coaa,-., 4. .^er.ent,9 improved with greater protection. 0 Target • i • Liberty Road NE is an important street that connects •Ee? , ,0 ••• lieu Fin several neighborhoods to Williamson Road but it but has `� ••. Q missing sidewalks, no crosswalks,limited sightlines,and " 6 ••• ' AVENDALE high-speed traffic. 0 atlantic Constr ctxs.- • •• • Neighborhood streets have wide turning radii and no • WASPARkNINGTON >` • sidewalks or crosswalks;this invites speed and makes r 9'`e,Ui,, ,,, a% �t 1 drivers less likely to stop or yield. zp r,y M1M1 ...,•T£ 3V Y Brown-Robertson Q �� Eurek Pe a <k9 < 'Park _ MAJOR FINDINGS 133 Online Survey From the Community The City circulated an online survey and interactive map during the development of the plan. Nearly 200 "The biggest issue I see is people not paying people completed the survey and made more than 350 attention. I'm a runner, and I have had several comments on the map. instances where I have the walk sign and Key findings from the survey included: drivers simply do not pay attention and turn where I am legally running across the road." • People in Roanoke have felt the personal cost of traf- fic crashes. Nearly half of all respondents (43%) have been personally injured or know a family member, Online survey responses confirmed need for more friend,or acquaintance who was killed or seriously representative engagement. Despite African Americans injured in a crash. making up nearly 1/3 of Roanoke's population,less than • Speeding and lack of bicycle and pedestrian 2% of the respondents identified as Black or African infrastructure continue to be major concerns.Top American.The limitations of participation in the on-line safety concerns from survey respondents included survey informed the choice of locations for the National dangerous intersections,lack of sidewalks and places Night Out events and community walks that were part of to bike,speeding,and distracted driving. Many believe the overall engagement plan. that reducing speed limits and adding traffic calming measures,especially in residential areas,would Major Findings significantly increase safety. • Respondents see stricter enforcement as the The extensive community engagement and outreach primary way to change behavior.Unsafe behaviors activities coalesced around several recurring themes like speeding,aggressive driving, running red lights, and issues (Figure 24). and not yielding to pedestrians all contribute signifi- Speed is a major concern among all residents and cantly to respondents' safety concerns. Many called stakeholder groups in every part of the city.There is for stricter enforcement of traffic laws and installation little deterrent to high vehicle speeds on city streets, of speed cameras. and this combines with vehicle design (large, powerful • Visibility and safety go hand in hand: People identi- vehicles that are quiet and insulated from the outside)to Pied many areas where complex,skewed,or poorly encourage excessive speed. designed intersections lead to poor visibility and unsafe conditions for all modes.Inadequate lighting and other Lack of pedestrian infrastructure is a pervasive issue. obstructions often further limit visibility in these areas. Missing and poorly maintained sidewalks,the lack of safe crossings(with marked crosswalks and signals), • High-speed arterials with poor bicycle and and speeding and distracted drivers make walking pedestrian infrastructure are the primary places difficult—especially for people with a disability or where people feel unsafe. Comments added to limited mobility options. the interactive map further confirm the needs on many of the top scoring High Injury Network Transit users lack safe,comfortable,and dignified corridors.Williamson Road,Orange Avenue, 9th places to wait for the bus and to get to and from the Street,Campbell Avenue, Hershberger Road, and the bus stop.There is little incentive to cross the road at a Broadway-Franklin-McClanahan triangle were top marked crosswalk to get to or from a bus stop because corridors where people identified feeling unsafe or crosswalks rarely exist and frequently have no pedes- had safety improvement ideas. trian signals,even at major intersections. 34 PUBLIC INPUT People on bicycles avoid riding on arterial streets. Instead,they ride on the sidewalk(if present),choose From the Community longer alternative routes,or simply don't ride on their own or at all—despite wanting to do so. Legacy infra- "I am in wheelchair—we need more awareness structure such as striped mobility lanes on major roads and protection for disabled people crossing or are seen as insufficient; newer infrastructure such as walking adjacent to roadways" the separated mobility tracks and the existing greenway system is more popular. Those who have no choice are left to use a system that Motorists are frustrated by the unexpected and feels unsafe and hostile. Education and enforcement seemingly unpredictable behavior of people on foot undoubtedly have a role to play in breaking this cycle. and bicycle,as well as by anything that impedes their However,engineering holds the key to creating a Safe progress.Speeding and distracted driving are issues for System in Roanoke. all road users.There is no safety culture on city streets. Streets can be designed to operate at slower and Definition.Street design sets drivers'expectations safer speeds without restricting car use or access.The and establishes the safety culture(or lack thereof). following chapter shows several safety measures that Roanoke's streets have evolved to the point that it is too clarify how and where people can walk, ride a bike or easy to drive too fast while paying too little attention. motorcycle,and drive safely—providing the definition There is little incentive to follow the rules.As a result, and certainty that people say they want, regardless of cars dominate even the quietest of streets and people how they get around. don't want to walk or bike for even the shortest trips. Figure 24 Responses provided during engagement events. "What are the biggest issues that make you feet unsafe on Roanoke's streets?" No sidewalks or places to bike 36% Dangerous intersections 28% No crosswalks or pedestrian signals 26% Poor visibility and sightlines 17% Poor street lighting 16% Wide streets that encourage driving too fast 15% Streets with lots of driveways, alleys, and intersections , 2% "Which of these behaviors or other factors on the roadway worry you most" Speeding 39% Failure to stop or yield at intersections 31% Distracted driving 30% Aggressive driving 25% Trucks, buses, and/or large vehicles 5% Impaired driving ■ 3% MAJOR FINDINGS 135 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. PRIORITY ISSUES AND FOCUS AREAS The planning process has identified the most sig- Appendix C in the form of a toolbox of safety measures. nificant causes of fatal and serious injury crashes Examples are drawn from the toolbox to illustrate this in Roanoke as well as the locations throughout section of the SAP. the city where there is greatest risk and most The seven priority issues are: pronounced history of serious crashes occurring • Speed • Bicyclists (Section 2). We have captured the lived experi- • Distraction and • Motorcyclists ence of Roanoke residents through a variety of Impairment • Schools media (Section 3)and confirmed the over-riding . Pedestrians • Culture of Safety policy priorities of the City in addressing these issues (Section 1). These priority areas are closely aligned with the In this section of the Safety Action Plan,these factors geographic locations that were identified in the devel- are combined into a more targeted list of seven pri- opment of the High Injury and High Risk Networks. ority issues.The project team has identified the most Together,they create Focus Areas where appropriate appropriate potential solutions that address these safety measures can be implemented to increase safety. priority issues.These safety measures are presented in ROA AIRPORT - 1I • \-f�„ 4 i SAL EM • Gil► • 4 ) • Iro _ _ . _ O jV t�IN'TON rrr. ■R t � • / 1/em,r i o r. I Priority Locations a Intersection Focus ,� Corridor Focus Area-wide Focus — High Injury Network 0 0.5 1 mi O Schools 11 1 1 I 38 I PRIORITY ISSUES AND FOCUS AREAS Safety Measures Toolkit The crash analysis and community input process helped to Each safety measure is described in detail and is identify the highest risk corridors,intersections,and areas connected to the issue and crash type it is designed in the city,as well as the behaviors and crash types that to address.Many of them help to solve multiple are the most common in fatal and serious injury crashes. risks and crash types at the same time. Most of the The Safety Measures Toolkit includes detailed information safety measures are based on the Federal Highway on 30 proven roadway design changes that directly Administration's "Proven Safety Countermeasures", address these problems(Figure 25).Many of these which have documented crash reduction benefits as safety measures are illustrated in the Safety Action Plan, well as guidance on when and where to deploy them. showing how and where they might be applied to increase Where safety measures are not yet on FHWA's list,the the safety of the people traveling throughout the city. toolkit provides available research and background information to document the potential benefits of the Figure 25 Safety Measures Measure Relevance Application Measure Relevance Application U) U) 0 , U) o In C C U1 CO = C C in CO t O RIi U 1) — L 0 CO U) V U1 — L L U 0 L u O "O co U) L O v MI 4c 'O (0 UI L O d '1J UI t G) y G) U L Ol O O 7 'L G) )— ) U O O _7 'L L O) G) u'O C" L '"' L G) G) "Cl" �' L "" L 0) O_ CU O U 7 0 G) O. G) U O U 7 0 G) in o a m M cn c� U E z cn o a m M cn U U z Corner Protected Radius Reduction x x x x x x Mobility Lane x x x Crossing Protected Island/Median x x x x x Intersection x x Curb Extensions x x x x x Raised Crossing x x x x x Curb Ramps x x x x x x Raised Intersection x x x x x x Daylight Intersections x x x x x x Remove Slip Lanes x x x x x x Hardened x x x x x Roadway Centerline Reconfiguration x x x x x x x x High Visibility Crosswalk x x x x x Roundabout x x RRFB x x x x Horizontal Deflection x x x x Safety Cameras x x x x Leading Shared Street x x x x x Pedestrian x x x x x Sidewalk x x x x x Interval Speed Humps x x x x x x Mobility Track x x x x Speed Limit Neighborway x x x x Reduction x x x x x Traffic Circle x x x x x No Right x x x x Traffic Diverters x x x x x Turn on Red Visual Narrowing x x x x x x x Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon x x x x x SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT 139 treatment.The toolkit includes a general order-of-mag- Figure 26 Sample graphics from Safety Measures Toolkit nitude cost estimate, potential maintenance implica- tions,and typical timeframe for implementation for each of the measures. {-0, it n Almost all the measures can already be seen on the r ', -- ground somewhere in Roanoke.The toolkit identifies I •.„ ..0. 0>- -----',,I ..t ', '. additional locations where the different measures might - ; r . be applied in Roanoke to have the greatest benefit on _�„ traffic safety(Figure 26). r I '''�'I ,L a--t..t..Y Many of the safety measures are used in the illustra , �..• tions in this section of the Safety Action Plan.These i • show how the safety measures might be applied at loca- tions around the city that are on the High Risk and High Injury Networks and were identified by the community as feeling unsafe.These locations are also illustrative of common situations in Roanoke where implementation of the safety measures can be replicated.The illustrations are not meant to be seen as specific recommendations or proposed projects;they show potential applications. _ A a There are some measures,such as curb radius reduc- tions and high visibility crosswalks,that are recom- mended to become a routine part of resurfacing projects Public art.Salem Turnpike,NW,Roanoke. and a standard design element for all city projects. These would not typically require additional study or public review every time they are installed.Other,more // __ complex design features and combinations of safety measures(e.g.,as part of a major intersection project or *. i �,,-'` ' 0 r: - - � . '- corridor study)would be reviewed as part of the normal � n ., , public process before implementation. ,71,,--W' --:, ` ' , 1,, • These safety measures are highlighted because they , �� directly address the most common crash types and .! locations in the city.There are many other roadway ilk :. i� ill I design elements such as lighting,traffic signals,and ! ]ii _ , ! t. warning signs that will continue to be used as part of ,�: �` ` a routine street design and operations.There are also - , ongoing education and enforcement initiatives in the ., ININIIIIkb- City and region that complement these engineering \_,_ + solutions.Where possible,these should be integrated to - have the maximum impact. . J Curb and parking protected bike lane,Cambridge MA. 40 I PRIORITY ISSUES AND FOCUS AREAS The Role of Enforcement L :, .-., - - in Traffic Safety Enforcement remains a key strategy in tackling traffic ... _ ' safety issues in Roanoke,especially speeding and r , distracted/impaired driving.Targeted enforcement �" I i • '1 initiatives such as seasonal drink/drive campaigns and �' % 1 2'.} ,`. speed enforcement in response to community concerns dt yam,?} ail '- _ remain critically important in establishing a culture of - safety. Enforcement and education strategies are also a 1 - i an essential element in helping people adjust to new infrastructure projects. -' . While the Safe System Approach emphasizes that 1 , roadway design should naturally encourage safe 1 f'ff`` , w`pt :� speeds and attentive driving,enforcement remains 10 sf � essential to ensuring these designs function as intended, - „ , :.,.., -Pg• especially when they are first introduced. Permanent behavior change,particularly related to impairment andIII distracted driving,does not occur from infrastructure alone—it requires consistent,visible,and well-targeted t' a.A enforcement to reinforce safe driving habits and deter ="T dangerous behaviors.The Safe System Approach ;�N , represents a cultural shift for all involved,including the ..\ police department,which has historically shouldered the IT". primary responsibility for traffic safety despite limited • staff capacity. By making enforcement a central,ongoing priority,the built environment can achieve its intended safety outcomes more effectively and consistently. <, The engineering safety measures in this SAP,strategi- /, catty supported by enforcement and education initiatives in collaboration with the Roanoke Police Department, Law enforcement officers engage with Roanoke residents are designed to address the contributing causes of as part of National Night Out events,and during a Walk crashes on the High Injury Network in the City.They Audit. They are on the Front Lines of traffic safety also include systemic design solutions that will address initiatives in the City. the underlying behaviors and lack of safety culture that exists in the city today.Consistent implementation of these safety measures will enable the police depart- ment to focus on targeted enforcement and education initiatives that will have the greatest impact on crash numbers in the future. THE ROLE OF ENFORCEMENT IN TRAFFIC SAFETY 141 Speed The crash analysis and public input process highlight Street design is a more powerful influence on the speed speed as a major issue in Roanoke. Fatal crashes are at which people drive than education or enforcement more likely to involve speed than any other contributing of posted speed limits.This is one way that the Safe cause.This is consistent with experience in communi- System Approach differs from past traffic safety efforts. ties across the country and around the world:speed is For example,Gainsboro Road NW has a posted limit of the single most important element in the likelihood of a 25 mph, but the design of the street encourages much crash occurring and the severity of the consequences of higher speeds. a crash (Figure 27). Design elements that encourage speed include: Speed is an issue for all road users. Motor vehicle • Wide traffic lanes drivers and occupants are at risk from roadway depar- • Multiple lanes ture and lane departure crashes caused by excessive or inappropriate speed. Roadway departure crashes • Clear,straight sightlines and an absence of signals frequently involve one vehicle running off the road and and crosswalks striking a utility pole,traffic sign,or other fixed object. • Slip lanes and turn lanes Lane departure crashes typically result in a head-on • Wide corner radii collision after a vehicle has crossed the centerline. The safety and comfort of pedestrians, bicyclists,and motorcyclists is also affected by the speed of motor vehicle traffic. Figure 27 The Impact of Speed on Crash Severity 2 0 3 0 MPH 4 0 MPH MPH (Cri") (111) (ICI() ********** ********** titttittitttt Likelihood of fatality 4 Q Likelihood of fatality Likelihood of fatality 1 Q/0 or severe injury 0 /0 or severe injury /7 3 Q/0 or severe injury Source: Tefft,B.C.Impact speed and a pedestrian's risk of severe injury or death.Accident Analysis&Prevention. 50.2013. 42 I PRIORITY ISSUES AND FOCUS AREAS Where is Excessive speed contributes to a lack of perceived safety in neighborhoods throughout the city. Locations Speed an Issue? where it is a particular concern include: • Downtown Roanoke,where high pedestrian activity Speed is a pervasive issue,as much of the public and conflicts with motor vehicle traffic. stakeholder input highlighted.These streets from • The neighborhoods either side of Orange Avenue NW the Focus Areas are on the High Injury and High Risk between 10th and 24th Streets NW.Orange Avenue Network for all modes and have many of the design has fast traffic which spills over onto long,straight elements that encourage speed. neighborhood streets. • Elm Avenue SE between South Jefferson Street and Design solutions to reduce speeds include: Sixth Street SE,where the street divides and becomes the one-way pair of Bullitt and Jamison Avenues SE. • Horizontal deflection • Raised crosswalks • Orange Avenue NW from Gus Nicks Boulevard NE to ' Corner radius reductions and intersections 10th Street NW where the street has multiple wide • Hardened centerlines ' Speed humps lanes, high-speed ramps and slip lanes. • Lower Speed Limits • Traffic circles At intersections,high speed traffic increases people's • Curb Extension reaction times and vehicle stopping distances and Supporting Initiatives reduces the cone of vision in which drivers see other vehicles and people around them.Angle crashes,espe- • The City is developing a Speed Management Action cially involving a left-turning vehicle,are more common. Plan (SMAP)SMAP will include actions and strategies consistent with this SAP.Concurrently with this Safety Examples of Focus Area Intersections where design Action plan.The City will adopt and implement the elements encourage speed include: recommendations of the Speed Management Plan. • Hershberger Road NW and Cove Road NW. • The City is exploring approaches to implementing Hershberger Road has multiple wide lanes,turn lanes, Automated Speed Enforcement Cameras in City of and a posted speed of 35 mph.There are slip lanes Roanoke school zones.Automated Speed Enforcement and wide-angled right turns. Cameras have been shown to reduce speeding, • Melrose Avenue NW and 24th Street NW where increase safety,and have the potential to be enforce- high-speed right turn slip lanes with limited visibility ment multipliers while being revenue neutral. increase the risk of merging collisions and reduce the likelihood of drivers yielding to pedestrians. Lower Speed Limit to 30 mph , Extend Existing Sidewalk to Create Sidepath II I Orange Avenue at Rhodes Avenue NE. Options include lowering the speed limit to 30 mph,reducing lane widths to create a sidepath for people on foot and bike,reducing corner radius onto side roads to slow turning traffic. SPEED 143 Remove Right Only Lanes _ ____------ Remove Slip Lanes \\� �rirrr,�r I. i -:'gyp - -- 'd a "' %I1r1r1119` ����� Add Mobility Track on Cove Rd ______-----J- Add Sidewalk and High- Visibility Crosswalks Hershberger Road NW and Cove Road NW. Options include eliminating slip lanes,adding pedestrian signals and high visibility crosswalks to all legs of the intersection,and slowing speeds. .,,; .,� la, _ _ Add Traffic Circles " �" Fill Missing Sidewalk � Add Curb Ramps • ': Add Horizontal Deflection --r'.,, .n Melrose Rugby and South of Orange Avenue neighborhoods. Options include a combination of area-wide traffic calm- ing measures-chosen in collaboration with neighborhood groups and residents-including speed humps, raised cross- ings,horizontal deflection, and lower speed limits.Also need to fill in missing sidewalks,crosswalks,and curb ramps. 44 I PRIORITY ISSUES AND FOCUS AREAS • Distraction and Impairment Stakeholders and Roanoke residents share a concern Examples of Focus Area Intersections where design for the increasing level of distraction and impairment elements contribute to distracted driving include: among drivers.Serious injury crashes are more likely • Williamson Road intersections have indistinct mark- to involve distracted or impaired driving than any other ings, missing street edges,and a high incidence of contributing cause,which is consistent with experience vehicles stopped in the travel lane to make a left turn. elsewhere and the most current research about peo- • Dale Avenue SE and 13th Street SE has fast ple's driving habits. approaches,changing lane configurations, Distracted drivers are prone to weaving,lane departure, unprotected mobility lanes,and significant and failing to stop or yield and may be distracted by pedestrian activity. mobile devices, passengers,activities such as eating Distracted driving is an issue in neighborhood centers and drinking,and mental stress. where there is unexpected activity such as on-street While these are behavioral issues,street design can parking,driveways,and pedestrian activity. For example: also contribute by failing to hold the attention of drivers. The commercial center at Cove Road NW and Lafayette Examples include: Boulevard is at an angled intersection with indistinct • Missing,worn,or indistinct roadway markings roadway markings;through traffic goes around a signifi- • Inadequate lighting cant bend on a roadway that is otherwise quite straight. • Changes in lane configuration Design solutions to increase driver • Lack of a well-defined street edge such as a curb or attention include: raised median • High visibility crosswalks • Leading Pedestrian Intervals at signals Where is Distracted • Roundabouts and traffic circles • Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons Driving an issue? • Protected mobility lanes Like speeding,distracted driving can be an issue almost • Roadway reconfiguration anywhere on Roanoke roads.These streets from the Focus Areas are on the High Injury and High Risk Network for all modes and have many or all of these design elements. • Franklin Road SW from 2nd Street SW to the Roanoke River changes from 2,to 3,to 4 lanes,and has fre- quent intersections with faded markings. • Hershberger Road NW between Williamson Road and 1-581 has numerous distractions,and an unprotected mobility lane. • Drivers heading towards the Memorial Bridge routinely encroach well into the mobility lane on Memorial Avenue as they make a sweeping turn, Texting and driving on Hershberger Road NE without slowing down. DISTRACTION AND IMPAIRMENT 145 f Add Pedestrian Signal Heads _ 4,1 '` Add 90 Degree Add High Visibility Crosswalk Add Curb Extensions 111 Curb Ramps _-- "OFif . a rn • „..mow. • __W Williamson Road NE and Liberty Road NE.Options include adding pedestrian signals and crossings to increase visibility;reducing crossing distances and tightening the curb radius to slow turning vehicles down and require more care and attention. Access Management for Businesses Sidewalks Raised to Continue Across Driveways 11 \I 'c , \ Add Mobility Track Add Roundabout i 0�/ \\\ !r \\\ \\ Add Sidewalks Cove Road NW and Lafayette Boulevard NW.Options include adding a small roundabout to clarify priority and reduce speeds;adding crosswalks,sidewalks and curb ramps to serve churchgoers,business patrons at the neighborhood center. 46 I PRIORITY ISSUES AND FOCUS AREAS Motorcyclists As noted in the crash analysis, people riding motor- cycles are among the most vulnerable road users on Roanoke streets.They are disproportionately involved _ in fatal and serious injury crashes compared to the t number of trips made by motorcycle and the overall number of crashes involving motorcyclists. ^ * ' .,w Fatal and serious injury crashes involving motorcyclists highlight the unique characteristics of motorcycling itself: some are single-vehicle,run-off-the-road crashes involving speed that are similar to motor vehicle colli- sions. However,many reflect the vulnerability and less Williamson Road, NE looking North visible profile of bicyclists and pedestrians:victims are - struck by drivers who fail to see or misjudge the speed of a motorcyclist when making a turn. Roadway design elements that contribute to rgr fatal and serious injury collisions involving _ motorcyclists include: ,, . • Slip lanes • Permissive Left Turn Signals and Right "r ' Turn on Red •�¢ �_ � • Frequent driveways and uncontrolled intersections • Multiple lanes ,41 Williamson Road at Shenandoah Avenue,SE MOTORCYCLISTS 147 Where are Motorcyclists at Risk? Design solutions to increase motorcyclist safety include: These streets from the Focus Areas are on the High • Injury and High Risk Network for motorcyclists and have Daylighting intersections many or all of these design elements. • No Right Turn on Red or Permissive Left • Melrose Avenue NW from 22nd. Street to Peters Creek Turn signals Road has higher speeds, multiple lanes,and several ' Removing slip lanes uncontrolled intersections with limited visibility due to • Lower speed limits parked cars. • Williamson Road NE from downtown Roanoke to Supporting Initiatives Hershberger Road NW.South of Orange Avenue the road had multiple lanes,a lot of turning traffic and • The City has an annual traffic safety campaign that terrain that limits visibility. North of Orange Avenue, typically focuses on the safety of vulnerable road the four-lane undivided cross section has frequent users. In future years,the City can develop the intersections and driveways. campaign around motorcycle issues,taking care to Examples of Focus Area Intersections where design develop a messaging campaign and strategy that elements contribute to motorcycle crashes include: avoids victim blaming. • State Highway 24(Dale Avenue,Bullitt and Jamison Avenues,and Elm Avenue SE)from the city limit to downtown Roanoke has frequent intersections with awkward angles and slip lanes • Orange Avenue NE between 1-581 and Hollins Road NE has intersections with slip lanes,permissive left turn , s,414100,1 arrows,and extensive merging across multiple lanes at speed. N NB " No Right on Red � ' L - ,,,,;, - — ower Speed Limit to 25 mph Add Additional Lighting a .- i i- . .. +� No Permissive left Turn •- r i � .. x a , .,.. . _ e .. '.., are- a � .:. f. t ,. Motorcycle Warning Sign 3 6 a ., k a kf x ' .141' !a i Melrose Avenue NW. Options include lowering the speed limit to 25 mph to reduce the incidence and severity of crashes;eliminate right turn on red and permissive left turns to stop drivers from pulling out in front of motorcyclists. 48 1 PRIORITY ISSUES AND FOCUS AREAS j = �`7�' - �� � Coordinate Signal Timing to � "'' _. e ,, '- s, ` Manage Speed 7,7....,-.„1.--- •-, ,,., -- . , - - n - Add? mobility lanes # Raised and Continuous £' ` ' Sidewalks :,, 1 Access Management to Reduce Conflicts Add Center Turn Lane i it ,� Williamson Road NE.Options include a roadway reconfiguration to provide a median to make left turns safely as well as adding safe places for people walking,biking,and crossing the street. No Right on Red No Permissive Left Turn Signal .. Remove Slip Lanes . , Add High Visibility Crosswalks m ..._ {13 I Add Medan Island Crossings Y ,, -- ♦ " �. s ,ate """' • Dale Avenue SE at 13th Street SE.Options include eliminating slip lanes to slow turning traffic and reduce high speed merges;eliminating right turn on red and permissive left turns;adding high visibility crosswalks and pedestrian signals. MOTORCYCLISTS 149 Pedestrians People traveling by foot(including people using a Examples of Focus Area Intersections where design wheelchair)are among the most vulnerable road users elements contribute to pedestrian crashes include: in the city.Virtually every resident and visitor to the area • Williamson Road NE, has sections of missing experiences the city on foot at some point. Pedestrians sidewalk and curb ramps; only four of the fourteen are significantly more likely to die or be seriously signalized intersections have marked pedestrian injured in a crash than other road users and are particu- crosswalks and signals tarty vulnerable to the impact of vehicle speeds4. • Franklin Road SW where it intersects with Broadway Crash reports show that pedestrians are particularly Avenue and Brandon Avenue. No pedestrian signals at vulnerable when walking in the roadway and when long,exposed,and poorly marked crossings and one crossing busy roads,often when they are outside a slip lane. Broadway Avenue SW,at Franklin Road SW, marked crosswalk.The reports typically do not indicate is nearly 200 feet wide, has no marked crosswalk,and whether adequate sidewalks or crosswalks are present a sidewalk on only one side. or not. Pedestrian crashes frequently cluster near bus Examples of Focus Area neighborhood centers with stops,as well as on busy streets in commercial areas. significant pedestrian safety risks include: Street design elements that contribute to fatal and • Downtown streets typically have sidewalks, marked serious injury crashes involving pedestrians include: crosswalks,and pedestrian signals. However,vehicle • Missing, narrow or poorly maintained sidewalks,curb traffic has priority,and the streetscape is dominated ramps,and crosswalks by parked and moving cars.Sidewalks are crossed by • Missing or faulty pedestrian signals frequent driveways and garage entrances. • Right Turn on Red and Left Turns that conflict with the ' South of Orange Ave NW between 10th and 22nd pedestrian crossing phase Streets. Basic pedestrian amenities such as side- walks,crosswalks,and pedestrian signals are missing • Poor lighting and visibility at intersections throughout this neighborhood.There is no indication • Wide turning radii that traffic should move slowly and yield to people. Design solutions to increase pedestrian Where Are Pedestrians at Risk safety include: These roads from the Focus Areas are on the Pedestrian • Crossing islands High Injury and High Risk Network and have many or all • Daylighting intersections of these design elements. • High visibility crosswalk markings • Hershberger NW pedestrians have long,exposed • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons crossings with no pedestrian signals;frequent • Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons driveways and intersections with very wide corners; sidewalk is minimum width • Traffic circles • Liberty Road NE/NW has narrow or missing sidewalks with poor lighting and sightlines. Intersecting streets have excessively wide corners;there are no marked crossings or pedestrian signals. 4 httns://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicle-height- compounds-dangers-of-speed-for-pedestrians 50 I PRIORITY ISSUES AND FOCUS AREAS �-`' Add RRFB v. Add Sidewalksa ".,, "' ' Narrow Street Entrance S i t i _ ,, , rig_ , w Liberty Road NE. Options include adding sidewalks and curb ramps to provide safe, accessible places to walk;adding a crosswalk with warning lights to create a safer place to cross to the store;tightening intersections to reduce vehicle speeds and increase the likelihood of drivers yielding to pedestrians. / ii iii• Remove Right Turn Arrow I ill° Add mobility lane Add High Visibility Crosswalks Widen Crosswalks Remove Slip Lanes Create Pedestrian Refuges Add Pedestrian Signals t. .4.A. t. • •ram7 _ — y` (81110011111115111 Add Curb Extension Franklin Road SE and Brandon Avenue/McClanahan Street SE. Options include removing slip lanes to elim- inate high speed merging and pedestrian threat;adding pedestrian signals and crosswalk markings;reducing corner radius to slow turning traffic. PEDESTRIANS 151 r r/ f) - Q r Add Signals or PHB with High / Visibility Crosswalks 20 Q Raised Intersection # . Add Horizontal Deflection • Q I If j 20 MPH Speed Limit Add Speed Humps or Cushions I �J ' ' 20 Orange/Melrose/Moorman Avenues between 15th and 17th Streets.Options include area-wide traffic calming solutions such as horizontal deflection,traffic circles,raised crosswalks and intersections to slow traffic;adding missing sidewalks,crosswalks,and curb ramps;reducing the speed limit near community destinations. Supporting Initiatives From the Community • The City has embraced two successful street art projects in recent years.The project on Salem "A family friend was seriously injured in drunk Turnpike NW narrowed the street and intersections driving crash this year on Franklin Rd. Easy to quite significantly using flex posts and painted areas. blame the drunk driver and say nothing can be The project on Ferdinand Avenue SW reclaimed large done, but you could argue that if Roanoke had areas of pavement with paint and posts to help slow better walking, biking, and transit accommoda- traffic down and discourage through traffic. Both tions,the situation would have been less likely projects were initiated by community organizations to occur." and used local artists.The City will encourage fur- ther collaborations and will support establishment of an annual street art program in conjunction with the Arts Commission. From the Community • The annual street resurfacing program will be reviewed and roadway striping and layout options "I think speed plays one of the biggest factors will be evaluated to optimize the safety and efficient in all of driving. If folks are speeding,they are movement of all users.Additional funding will be more likely to cause an accident." pursued for safety treatments that can be paired with repaving projects,such as corner radius reductions and curb extensions. • The City will continue its program to systematically install and fix curb ramps at intersections. 52 I PRIORITY ISSUES AND FOCUS AREAS Williamson Road Consequently,Williamson Road is currently the focus of a Thriving Communities grant through the United States Williamson Road is emblematic of safety,access, Department of Transportation,and it is frequently identi- and fairness issues in Roanoke.The road has a poor fied as a priority for action throughout this Safety Action safety record and several segments of the corridor Plan. Most of the safety measures described in Appendix feature on the High Injury and High Risk Networks.The C can be applied along Williamson Road—from roadway intersection of Orange Avenue and Williamson Road has reconfiguration,slip lane removal,and mobility lanes to a high number of fatal and serious injury crashes as curb extensions,sidewalk and crosswalk construction, well as frequent less severe and property damage only and intersection daylighting. collisions.There have been several pedestrian fatalities Changes will be made incrementally along the entire in recent years north of Orange Avenue and Williamson corridor as community consensus and funding allows. Road and fatal and serious crashes involving motorcy- Three areas of particular focus for the Safety Action clists and bicyclists between Liberty Road NE and 10th Plan are the section in NE Roanoke between Orange Street NE. Avenue and Hershberger Road,the intersection of The characteristics of the road between Pocahontas Orange Avenue and Williamson Road,and the segment and Angell Streets—four lanes,undivided, missing of Williamson Road that forms the eastern edge of sidewalks and crosswalks,no bicycle infrastructure, downtown Roanoke. bus stops, numerous driveways and side streets—are NE Roanoke Section.Corridor-wide systemic safety associated with high crash and risk levels in communi- measures that can be implemented relatively quickly ties across the country. and inexpensively include: Williamson Road is an important north-south corridor • Eliminating sidewalk gaps and missing through downtown Roanoke that also serves the curb ramps Berglund Center and commercial activities all the way to • Marking all legal crosswalks, including high-visibility Hershberger Road NW.Vibrant neighborhoods on both crosswalks at all signalized intersections sides of Williamson Road rely on it for access to Valley View Mall,downtown Roanoke,schools,the library,and ' Reducing turning radii with painted markings all points west of the city via 10th Street and Liberty and flex posts Road,including access to the Lick Run Greenway and • Changing bus stops to the far-side of intersections; Lincoln Terrace Elementary and Addison Middle Schools. adding shelters, benches etc. FR , 'swiri . ..._ up- _or. ,‘, -- • _,A, ! k ilia; •t = iai8� '§ �s. � Different views of Williamson Road NE at Liberty Road PEDESTRIANS 153 Changes requiring a longer lead time and higher -$costs include: • Adding pedestrian signals and phases at all signalized intersections `= - rs°• • iv,. • Adding Leading Pedestrian Interval timing r -' I7 ---7, t `f, t to signals £ • Lowering the Speed Limit by 5 mph • Implementing a Comprehensive Access Management Plan to consolidate and reduce the number of driveways • Restriping the existing roadway to provide mobility = r; lanes,a center turn lane/median,and one lane in _ each direction Significant and more expensive changes could include: •— � • Reconstructing the road with sidewalk level shared use path, raised median with left turn pockets, �- and one through travel lane in each direction • Raised crossings at side streets and continuous sidewalk across driveways • Burying utilities, pedestrian scale lighting t Intersection of Williamson Road and Orange Avenue. �,;� Ur Immediate changes could include: • Redesigning the slip lanes with flex posts to reduce 1R1 is - #` tr }.< speeds and improve sightlinessgm .�,, Alit • Adding high visibility crosswalks and pedestrian £ , signals/phases to all legs Downtown from Shenandoah Avenue NE to Elm Avenue ; SE. Immediate changes could include: • Marking all crosswalks with high-visibility markings • Reducing turning radii and crossing distances with '" •� painted markings and flex-posts • Eliminating right turn on red and permissive left turns FRY RaFRt4Fa� .Rfl • Closing slip lanes with flex posts lea,•tR0££N NOD CCO I VApE y . ! Longer term changes could include: • Raised intersection at Campbell Avenue SE and oami ! - Tazewell Avenue/Franklin Road SE NOM • �; ° 54 I PRIORITY ISSUES AND FOCUS AREAS Bicyclists Where are Cyclists Serious crashes involving people on bicycles are rare at Risk? and typically happen on collector streets and minor These streets from the Focus Areas are on the Bicyclist arterials. Riders say this is because they choose to avoid High Injury and High Risk Network and have many or all busy major arterials that have no safe place to bike,or of these design elements. they don't ride in the city. People with no such choice tend to ride or walk their bikes on the sidewalk of main • Brandon Avenue SW has intermittent shoulders and roads(where they exist). Increasing levels of everyday mobility between Main Street SW and Mud Lick Road biking can help the City meet it's economic development, and narrow striped lanes on the faster,four lane quality of life,and health goals;this will only happen if segment from Mud Lick Road to Peters Creek Road. people feel safe when riding. • Cove Road NW and Lafayette Boulevard NW are important through streets that have intermittent Crashes involving bicyclists are most likely to occur at mobility lanes on one side of the road only; in which intersections,although the greatest fear many cyclists cars routinely park. Passing a cyclist in the travel have is being hit by a vehicle that is passing them too lane is difficult. closely.Drivers frequently misjudge the speed of a bicy- clist when they are turning. For example,drivers turning Examples of Focus Area Intersections where design left will collide with a cyclist coming in the opposite elements contribute to bicyclist crashes include: direction; a right-hook crash happens when a driver • Liberty Road NE and Williamson Road NE. Neither turns right across the path of a rider going straight road has mobility lanes approaching the intersec- ahead. Riding on the sidewalk and riding against traffic tion; lanes are narrow,sightlines are poor and the are significant contributing causes to bicyclist crashes signalized intersection doesn't detect bicyclists on as drivers are not expecting people to be there. their own. Many less confident riders will use the sidewalks on Williamson and one side of Liberty. Street design elements that contribute to bicyclist crashes include: • Melrose Avenue NW and Lafayette Blvd NW. Although both streets have mobility lanes, • Lack of separated or protected mobility lanes they are narrow on Melrose Avenue and only • Mobility lanes that end suddenly(especially northbound on Lafayette Blvd.The intersection at intersections) markings set up right-hook crashes Westbound • Traffic signals that fail to detect a cyclist on Melrose and Southbound on Lafayette. • Abrupt changes in number of lanes and Examples of Focus Area neighborhood centers with lane widths significant bicyclist safety risks include: • Slip lanes and high-speed merge areas • The Belmont SE neighborhood has popular cycling (e.g.freeway ramps) streets such as Tazewell Avenue,Campbell Avenue, and 9th Street but the mobility lanes are inconsistent and disconnected. Main roads such as Jamison, Bullitt ly Avenues are critical through streets that have no , trton '° c + a bikeways; Dale Avenue and 13th Street have mini- D t # " mum-width striped lanes. Aky ' _• s Design solutions to increase bicyclist safety include: • Traffic Diverters • Protected intersections • Neighborways • Shared streets 1411 • Mobility Tracks Williamson Road north of Hershberger Road NE BICYCLISTS 155 iP'i-,'l e-,',,,i,tl.', i A�., }d ." f¢ e i^ # 1. j y s a�' , r, i 1,, % `" `. x d. s ..,_ ��*` *" a�s",� _ 1 t wry .,,,,- .-5 M Krl0r i t'N'''8''a'1!M Continuous Level Sidewalk' Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon r_ ,'.. €, Protected light individual Raised Median Lane Narrowing transportation lanes "` „It: , , immt:.,7 it. -- . ..... ..., ..... .... " Brandon Avenue,SW(between Mudlick/Edgewood and Salem city limits).Options include adding physical protection to existing striped mobility lanes;adding safe, controlled crossing with a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon; 4411 \,....... adding raised median to center turn lane area. / Add mobility lanes / / Upgrade Existing Sidewalks Waft*Nall : /// Create Protectedftrim fill" C , Haer Intersection 1 alineAveClose Eastbound nov •�. Access Rasa _ Z. �` N 411*`` • �, +, i, Add High Visibility Crosswalks ` , N. • ---- ------ 7/// iiii 'C ) //ii Ni._ i. Melrose Avenue NW and Lafayette Boulevard NW. Options include eliminating slip lanes;adding mobility lanes on Melrose and Lafayette;reducing crossing distances, adding high visibility crosswalks,pedestrian signals on each leg;closing one leg of HanoverAvenue NW to limit turning conflicts. 56 I PRIORITY ISSUES AND FOCUS AREAS Micromobility Takeaways from Community Engagement for the Network Plan Micromobility Network Plan The Roanoke area is a popular destination for road and mountain bicyclists and there is a vibrant community Roanoke area residents participated in of clubs,shops,and organizations offering formal pop-up events at popular local rides,a work- and informal rides,and events across the region.The shop hosted by PedalSafe,tabling at GoFest Roanoke River Greenway system is an important venue (including providing feedback on the South for active transportation and recreation. Jefferson Street demonstration project),and the on-line survey and map developed for the However,one of the most consistent themes that Safety Action Plan. Key takeaways included: emerged from community engagement activities during the development of the Safety Action Plan was the • Roanoke Greenways are a tremendous commu pent-up demand for more opportunities to ride in the nity asset for recreational and everyday riding. city. Riders of all levels of confidence said they would • Connectivity to the greenway system and ride more for everyday trips and for recreation if they on-road facilities is limited felt safer on city streets,especially the main roads. • Barriers such as rail lines, I-581, and The crash analysis for the Safety Action Plan found that major roads and intersections are a while no one was killed riding a bike during the study significant deterrent as there are few period of 2019-2023,there were numerous crashes that or no ways to safely cross them resulted in serious injuries to people on bikes.These • Existing facilities are discontinuous were most frequent on collector and minor arterial and do not provide sufficient pro- streets—for example, 10th Street NE and NW and tection from motor vehicles Liberty Road NE.This suggests that people on bikes are, . New Mobility Tracks on Shenandoah Avenue if they are able,choosing to avoid main roads such as NW and 9th Street SE are welcome addi- Orange Avenue,Williamson Road,and Franklin Road in tions to the mobility network,especially favor of less direct and quieter roads—or they simply where they connect to greenways. don't ride at all,even though they would like to do so. What is a Micromobility Network? From the Community A micromobility network is a connected system of streets, lanes,and greenways that can be used comfortably, "I've been on both sides. I know people who safely,and conveniently by people of all ages and abilities have been seriously injured and/or lost loved using a variety of human-powered and electric-assisted ones in bicycle/vehicle related accidents. I've devices.The network is supported by policies and also hit a cyclist. It was a child who did not programs to facilitate the use of these non-motor vehicle look/stop when exiting the family driveway. modes of travel.Micromobility devices include bicycles Thankfully,the boy was not hurt but I was (standard,cargo,and tandem),electric scooters(shared 1000% shook up. " and privately owned),e-bikes(not e-motos),skateboards, inline skates,and other low speed mobility devices including adaptive and assistive devices. BICYCLISTS 157 The Micromobility Network Vision `r The crash analysis, public input,and existing conditions .._ 'fit informed the development of a Micromobility Network 1,441 Vision that provides safe,comfortable,and convenient bicycling opportunities for Roanokers of all ages, ,NS abilities,and backgrounds with the goal of: --,.--• • Connecting people to the places they want to goill • Increasing separation between people on bikes and ` £' '1 motor vehicles on main roads ' 'aisimilmimi • Closing gaps in the existing system Protected Bike Lane, Washington DC • Providing access to local destinations(shops,schools, churches, recreation facilities, medical and civic services etc.) across the city. The network vision is comprised of separated or r - , r— protected mobility lanes on main roads, neighborways i , r`.-- r, -`41( on quieter streets,and greenways along rail, river,and I —__�- other corridors. — The resulting network was then prioritized by segment A. based on the degree to which the proposed facility will: - • Connect across major barriers (15%) • Help people reach daily/local destinations(25%) • Link to parks/recreation (15%) Neighborhood Bikeway, Vancouver, BC • Address safety concerns (15%) • Leverage existing investments(30%) C4' The prioritization factors were weighted,as shown ,� �, .� - in parentheses,to create a score for each logical - '�' ` '"`w•- '" segment of the proposed network.This helps the City ,•. �` ._'-, �'''' determine which projects to move forward first,while ��" t,wl'y iI , still taking advantage of unexpected opportunities to , r �" 1 ., k i move other segments forward whenever theyarise.The �¢1 41,!' 9 ` 4. Micromobility Network Vision Plan is a long-term vision ` " •' \i l, that will implemented over many years. �'` O More details about the development of the Micromobility Network Plan are available in Appendix D of the Vision Zero Safety Action Plan. - [Lick Run]Greenway, Roanoke, VA 58 I PRIORITY ISSUES AND FOCUS AREAS Figure 28 Vision network ROA III 1 AIRPORT ilvitr' . ANY. 1/40111111114P 1 SALEM iiii* , dir cri iti * ilk . ,„ --..„ Ilk I 1 f�, ;/� VINTON AR , —� i' N- ��.- 1i r^ Jr r \,,,_ ci,,4, ,fr,ir 410/4;p . ___-...4 "..10/41, Vision Network — Proposed Separate Mobility Lane _ Proposed Neighborway — Proposed Greenway — Existing Greenways Existing Trails o o.s i MI 0 I I III BICYCLISTS 159 School Trips and Youth Travel A significant number of Roanoke schools are located on intersection. Murray Run Greenway connects behind or near the High Injury and High Risk Networks,which the school;other educational and community facilities is a significant cause for concern. Recent changes in on Lofton Road. Potential Safety Measures: High school walk zones have resulted in children walking on visibility crosswalks at all crossings; curb extensions streets where there are no sidewalks or crosswalks. and turning radius reductions at Grandin and Brandon; Conditions such as this encourage parents to drive PHBs(e.g. at Grandin and Avenel, Laburnum). their children short distances to school...a vicious circle • James Madison Middle School and Fishburn Park creating the very safety and traffic congestion issues Elementary School on Overland Road SW(near people want to reduce. Brambleton Avenue SW). Brambleton Avenue is on The proximity of schools to roads on the High Injury and the High Risk Network;there is one signalized inter High Risk Networks is one of the factors that was used section at Overland Road; missing sidewalks along to identify the Focus Areas for this Safety Action Plan. It Brambleton to the west.Overland Road connects to is quite common for schools to be activity centers year- the Elementary School;very wide road with mobility round and to be located adjacent to other community lanes;connects to Colonial Avenue mobility lanes. resources that people of all ages need to access. Potential Safety Measures: protected bikeway and sidewalk from Overland Road to Ross Lane(connect Examples of places where this is important include: to greenway); protected mobility lane on Overland • Preston Park Elementary School near Williamson Road; redesign intersection to connect mobility lanes, Road NE. Recently redeveloped school has new add signalized crossing; Raised intersection and PHBs roadway access onto Williamson Road. at Overland Road and school entrance. • Lincoln Terrace Elementary School on Liberty Road • Fallon Park Elementary School near Dale Avenue,SE. and Burrell Street NW. Liberty Road NW and Burrell Dale Avenue is on the High Risk Network;there is an Street are on the High Risk Network and are critical RRFB on one leg of the intersection of Dale Avenue N-S connector streets; the school serves children in and 19th Street SE.The nearest signalized crossing an Environmental Justice Community.The Lick Run of Dale Avenue is at 13th Street or Vernon Street, Greenway passes immediately behind the school. nearly half a mile to the east.The school is adjacent to Potential Safety Measures: protected mobility lanes; several community recreation facilities and provides high visibility crosswalks; PHB; Sidewalks access to the Roanoke River Greenway System (Tinker • Addison Middle School on 5th Street NW(adjacent to Creek Trailhead). Potential safety measures:signal Orange Avenue NW).Orange Avenue is on the High ized crossings of Dale Avenue, neighborhood traffic Risk Network.There is one signalized crossing of calming in the Belmont-Fallon area; neighborway Orange Avenue.Connected to the Lick Run Greenway. along Tazewell Avenue. Potential Safety Measures: new sidewalks on 5th Design solutions to increase safety around Street NW(South of Orange) and Orange Avenue;traf- schools include: fic calming on Staunton Avenue and Hanover Avenue • Crossing islands NW; pedestrian crossings of 10th Street NW. • Hardened Centerlines • Patrick Henry High School at the intersection of • High Visibility Crosswalks Brandon Ave SW and Grandin Road SW. Both roads are • on the High Risk Network; they have sidewalks but no on and PHB signalized crossings other than at the very large main • Sidewalks 60 I PRIORITY ISSUES AND FOCUS AREAS €uRSIN Reduce Curb Radii Add Curb Extensions s ; y Widen Sidewalks t _ Add High Visibility Crosswalks ne"m"mat • :A/°r: '�A,Ai Af i Grandin Road SW and Brandon Avenue SW.Options include significantly reducing intersection crossing distances by tightening curb radii and extending curbs;adding high visibility crosswalks;widening sidewalks. a' -`!zi n ,r f .,i,*x .,* 4 4 Create Sidepath on South Side of Grandin y . Add Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon •. or, Extend Turn Lane to Crosswalk Convert Right Turn Lane to Bus Bay --.'* Reduce Curb Radius - 8 �'�� � - Extend Corner and Add p ,. ; _ ;�_ ` Perpendicular Curb Ramps • Reorient Crosswalk • i/i• ------------- f 4400111pr ir Al Avenel Avenue SW and Grandin Road SW.Options include installing a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon(especially for non-school arrival/dismissal times);eliminating right turn only lane and creating a bus pull-out bay;reducing crossing distances through curb extensions;extending the Murray Run Greenway through this intersection. Supporting Initiatives The City will: • Continue to explore a Safety Camera enforcement • Continue to apply for USDOT and VDOT grants to program in school zones.The cost of law enforcement implement pedestrian safety measures on roads in staff necessary to implement a citywide program the Focus Areas near schools. is prohibitive;the City may identify a small number of sites where the program can be piloted to better • Consider establishing a formal Safe Routes to assess staffing needs and costs. School program SCHOOL TRIPS AND YOUTH TRAVEL 161 Culture Initiate Downtown Safe Streets Design Project ofSafet Downtown Roanoke is the cultural,political,and y economic heart of the city. It should also be a beacon The City recognizes the need to create a much stronger of inspiration and model for traffic safety in the com culture of traffic safety in order to eliminate fatal and munity. Downtown streets have a complete sidewalk serious injuries by 2040.This requires an ongoing, hobs network and have marked crosswalks and pedestrian tic, multi-agency initiative that has the active support signals at most intersections, many with a Leading of community organizations.The Safety Action Plan is a Pedestrian Interval already. However,the streets are first step.The City will implement several high profile still dominated by traffic and several signature roads projects and adopt visible commitments to change that in the downtown are on the Pedestrian High Injury and will continue to signal to the community that in Roanoke, High Risk Networks(e.g.,Campbell,Salem,Williamson, people's safety on the road comes first. and 2nd Street SW).The City will consider a design project to reinforce pedestrian priority in the downtown area through,a series of gateway treatments using Potential Projects safety measures such as raised intersections and crossings,and more shared streets around City Market and Commitments to boost walkability. Envision Williamson Road t " . A.The City will continue to develop a community con- w. .••• ." "", sensus around implementation of the forthcomingklsiSrineftig !I JP Envision Williamson Road plan.Williamson Road NE is a high-profile city street,features prominently on the High Injury and High Risk Networks,and is an excellent candidate for a roadway reconfiguration in the future. r. There are a number of significant changes to the roadway that can be made as part of a demonstration project to improve the safety,comfort,and convenience of people driving,walking, biking,and using the bus, on Williamson Road.This package of measures include Pedestrian conflicts with turning vehicles, marking high-visibility crosswalks,eliminating gaps in downtown Roanoke. the sidewalk,adding missing curb ramps, relocating bus 1 stops,and tightening up intersections with side streets and driveways. wow �. PORTERS i 4. f - 7 ;macI ►. i -' r _ , • _. L _vim* r ... . _ ,L. _ a _ „, �xx ux ' .,,,,., __ . ___................ ,__ _ „„ .,.., ,. _ _ . . . .. _ South Jefferson Street pilot project Cyclist on the sidewalk, Williamson Road during GoFest, October 2024. 62 I PRIORITY ISSUES AND FOCUS AREAS Create New Street Design Guidance From the Community The city's streets lack definition. One reason for this "Make streets reflect their speed limit. Building is that the City doesn't have a current street design a road that people can drive 45mph on and guidance document that lays out best practices for the then posting a 25mph sign means people will design and operation of city streets.The City will explore drive 55 through there.We need to build more creating new street design guidance that will enshrine bike paths, sidewalks and intersections that design principles associated with the Safe System slow cars down and prioritize pedestrians. Approach in all projects. We need a more comprehensive public transit system to reduce the use of cars, parking and roadways. Building a city around cars will ruin it for all citizens and make it go bankrupt trying to build and maintain the infrastructure Early Roanoke Success Stories There are several examples around the city where imple- However,Colonial Avenue SW has recently been rebuilt mentation of these kinds of safety measures is already in the vicinity of the Community College with round- making a difference. For example,during the crash abouts,sidewalks,and mobility lanes;the section of analysis,the project consultants identified two roads that Colonial Avenue immediately adjacent to the Towers were notably absent from the High Injury and High Risk Shopping Center also has mobility lanes. Networks:Colonial Avenue SW and Garden City Boulevard SE. In both cases,these looked like arterial roadways that Similarly,Garden City Boulevard has a greenway for almost it's entire length.This provides a safer place for would typically have a poor crash record. people to walk and bike along this corridor and also makes it easier for people to drive. M 11,11 k, 4) 8 41440141 n / .60. ..... -' - IA .n v � r Complete Street infrastructure on Colonial Avenue SW CULTURE OF SAFETY 163 ACTIONS AND STRATEGIES Short-Term Actions Lead Support Measure Notes Relevance Safe System Cost Element Adopt the speed management plan Transportation RPD Adoption Several implementation items included in the Speed Management Speeding Safe Speeds STO Plan overlap with the Safety Action Plan Integrate Safe System language and metrics into updated Updated Guidance Ensure street design guidance contributes to safe system and Complete Streets Policy Transportation Planning and metrics meets current best practice designs Culture of Safety Safe Roads STO Launch Vision Zero Dashboard on City website Asset Management Transportation Page on website Commitment to transparency and accountability Culture of Safety Safe System STO Update Right-of-Way Permit standards to reflect Safe Transportation Stormwater, New Standards Adopted Ensure utility work occurs safely and meetings Culture of Safety Safe Roads STO System approach and language Engineering City/VDOT standards Update guidelines for deployment and use of traffic control Transportation RCPS,RPD Revised guidance Example:add High Schools to locations where RRFBs can be used Schools Safe Roads STO devices in school zones in school zones Continue PAC as a Vision Zero Task Force Transportation PAC 4 mtgs/year Commitment to transparency and accountability Culture of Safety Safe System STO Implement School Zone demonstration project(SS4A) Transportation RCPS Execute grant award, Funding secured from USDOT Safe Streets and Roads Schools Safe Roads $617,000 total; install demonstrations for All program $493,000 SS4A Introduce speed enforcement cameras in schools zones RPD/Sherrif's office Transportation,RCPS Number of pilot sites Publish RFP in 2026.Self-sustaining after initial set-up costs Schools Safe Speeds $70,000 to establish Dedicate operations and maintenance resources to Stormwater/ Sweeping& Purchase equipment(e.g.,small streetsweeper)for maintenance of $200,000 Capital, Vision Zero implementation Transportation Transportation maintenance metrics quick build infrastructure delineated by shur-curb,flex-posts etc. Culture of Safety Safe Roads $160,000/ yr Operations Engineering, Train staff on designing,building,and maintaining infrastructure to Safe Road Schedule and host ADA Training from LTAP Transportation Stormwater Training Completed meet PROWAG standards Pedestrians Users $3,750 Adjust to Far Side locations and/or closer to safe crossings and $200,000 Capital, Revise Valley Metro bus stop location policy Transportation GRTC Revisions completed ADA-compliant locations Pedestrians Safe Roads $20,000/ yr Operations Integrate Transportation Demand Management programs TOM programs support safety by encouraging the use of Safe Road with SAP RVARC Transportation Ongoing non-auto trips Culture of Safety Users STO Number of One currently exists;work towards at least one in each quadrant, Schools,Culture Safe Road Install Traffic Gardens at all Elementary Schools RCPS/RVARC Transportation Traffic Gardens add more as opportunities arise of Safety Users $50,000 each Evaluate effectiveness of existing RRFB's Transportation Updated Guidance Establish criteria to assess effectiveness of current installations to Pedestrian Safe Roads STO and metrics inform future use Minimum Opportunities to engage riders through RPD and VWCC motorcycle Safe Road Establish regular liaison with motorcycle community Transportation RPD Motorcyclist STO quarterly interactions training and retailers.Potential for a formal advisory committee Users Include updated safety features in scheduled replacement Updated procurement Older vehicles in city fleet may not have current safety of City vehicle fleet Fleet Management All departments specifications equipment and features Culture of Safety Safe Vehicles STO 'STD Staff Time Only 66 I ACTIONS AND STRATEGIES CULTURE OF SAFETY 166 Medium-Term Actions Lead Support Measure Notes Relevance Safe System Cost Element Lower speed limits by 5mph on neighborhood center streets; $50,000 Capital, Lower default speed limit by 5 mph in Neighborhood Centers Transportation RPD Lower Speed Limits change all signs Speeding Safe Speeds $5,000/ yr Operations Lower default speed limit by 5 mph on collector and Lower speed limits by 5mph on collector and arterial streets; $500,000 Capital, arterial streets Transportation RPD Lower Speed Limits change all signs Speeding Safe Speeds $10,000/ yr Operations Transportation, Update City Development/Zoning Code to include Safe Planning Economic Revisions completed Ensure default design standards and practices supporting the Safe Culture of Safety Safe Roads $ System design standards Development System Approach Update City Street Design Manual to reflect Safe System Transportation Planning,Engineering, New guidance For use internally,share with developers,and other agencies Culture of Safety Safe Roads $ design standards Stormwater Overall SRTS program would include education,encouragement, $100,000 Establish a formal Safe Routes to School Program RCPS,RVARC Transportation Secure Funding and engineering elements Schools Safe System New staff Secure funding for safety projects around schools Transportation RCPS,RVARC Secure Funding Potential funding sources include VDOT Transportation Alternatives Schools Safe System $6m and HSIP programs,SS4A.$250,000 per school site Long-Term Actions Lead Support Measure Notes Relevance Safe System Cost Element $5m Capital, Lower default speed limit by 5 mph on all residential streets Transportation RPD Lower speed limits Lower default speed limit for residential streets Speeding Safe Roads $50,000/ yr Operations Neighborhood Potential for SS4A,HSIP funds to implement Neighborhood Slow $15m Capital, Secure funding for safety projects on neighborhood street Transportation services Funding award Zones initiative.30 neighborhoods at$500,000 each Speeding Safe Roads $100,000/ yr Operations Planning, Develop action plan for area-wide traffic calming downtown, Pedestrian, Study downtown multimodal safety improvements Transportation Engineering,RPD Adoption of Plan gateways Bicyclist, Safe Roads $250,000 Study Motorcyclist Revise crash analysis,HIN,HRN to reflect progress,changes to 5-year Update of Safety Action Plan Transportation - Update Focus Areas crash picture Culture of Safety Safe System STO Establish sidewalk gap elimination program in focus areas Engineering Transportation Linear feet of sidewalk Identify and fill sidewalk gaps on HRN and focus areas Pedestrians Safe Roads STO 'STO Staff Time Only 67 I ACTIONS AND STRATEGIES CULTURE OF SAFETY 167 Annual-Ongoing Actions Lead Support Measure Notes Relevance Safe System Cost Element Publish Vision Zero annual report Transportation Communications Annual report published Provide annul report on crash data,projects and action Culture of Safety Safe System STO items completed Secure funding for implementation of neighborhood Number of Completed Establish a goal of securing funding for two or more street painting Arts Commission Transportation Projects projects each year to build on the success of Old Salem Turnpike Culture of Safety Safe Roads $50,000/yr street art projects I and Ferdinand Coordinate city-wide grant writing to focus on safety in Number&Content of Several potential USDOT and VDOT grant sources to consider every Culture of SafetySafe Roads STO priority locations Grants Manager All departments Grant Applications funding cycle Continue successful campaigns;consider motorcyclist safety as Culture of SafetySafe Road $250,000/ Annual safety education and awareness campaign Transportation Communications Completed Campaigns future focus area Users yr Grant Engineering, Review current capital projects for opportunities to Transportation, PAC Revised Plans Make sure ongoing development and construction projects are Culture of Safety Safe Roads STO incorporate safety measures Planning, and Projects improving safety and not maintain status quo Stormwater,Parks Implement targeted enforcement to support RPD Transportation Completed Campaigns Work with RPD to support implementation of new infrastructure Culture of Safety Safe Road STO engineering measures with warnings,citations Users Review RCPS School Construction plans RCPS Transportation Number of Plans Coordination to identify opportunities to make safety improvements Schools Safe Roads STO Reviewed based on crash history,proximity to HRN,and equity criteria. Host an Annual Regional Safety Summit RVARC Transportation Completed event Host an annual coordination and planning summit to ensure safety Culture of Safety Safe System $25,000/yr work is holistic,regional Planning,Police, Establish ongoing training on safety measures to Transportation RVARC,Stormwater, Number of 4-6 hour training on safety measures,new design guidance,for Culture of Safety Safe System $2,500/yr multidisciplinary audiences Engineering,VDOT Training Participants multiple agencies/staff,consultants Prioritize installation of missing ADA infrastructure at Pedestrian Safe Roads Existing Continue Curb Ramp Installation Program at intersections Transportation Engineering Number of Curb Ramps priority intersections Formalize Crosswalk Striping Program Transportation Number of Crosswalks Consistent crosswalk striping Pedestrians Safe Roads Existing Identify opportunities to implement projects from Transportation Planning, Number of Miles Include incidental and stand-alone project opportunities Bicyclists Safe Roads STO Micromobility Network Vision Plan Public Works Submit funding requests,grant applications for projects Transportation Engineering, Applications Submitted Include RAISE,TAP,Smart Scale,HSIP,SS4A,Thriving Communities Culture of Safety Safe System STO identified in the SAP Planning,RCPS Engineering, Ensure Street Design team members are using current best Culture of SafetySafe Roads STO Coordinate with Street Design Team Transportation Stormwater Regular Meetings practices designs,policies 'STO Staff Time Only 68 I ACTIONS AND STRATEGIES CULTURE OF SAFETY 168 METRICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY VISION Fatalities ZER1 ROANOKE 40 rwasa i Serious Injuries • . 241 0 - _ 41. AAr IMF I. Gsus1ay 9aowsF'pr t •.. Safety Action Plan Dashboard Fatal and serious injury crashes in Roanoke will not be eliminated overnight.This makes it important to track short-and long term steps taken to implement the Safety Action Plan as well as progress towards the overall goal.There are three key steps to maintaining transparency and accountability: • The Project Advisory Committee established for the development of the Safety Action Plan will continue to meet,albeit less frequently, to monitor progress and maintain a focus on implementation of the actions and strategies. • The City will publish an annual report each Spring,documenting the projects, programs, and policies that have been implemented in the prior year.The annual report should track crash data and trends from 2019 onwards. • The City will publish and maintain a data dashboard on its Vision Zero webpage.The dashboard will track crashes in the city so that the information is easily accessible. 70 I METRICS AND ACCOUNTABILITY The City is already moving forward with projects in Phases several Focus Area locations.The project pipeline Planning: Pre-funding Project Development includes four key phases: Planning, Funding, Design, Funding: Funding Source Identified and Construction.These projects will be monitored and Design: Funding Awarded,Design Underway progress will be reported in subsequent Vision Zero State Funding Sources annual reports. HSIP: Highway Safety Improvement Program OIPI: Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment SS: Smart Scale Corridors From To Planning Funding Design Construction 10th Street Williamson Road NE Campbell Avenue SW Brambleton Avenue Brandon Avenue SW SW City limit(Cave Spring) Brandon Avenue Franklin Road SE SW City limit(Salem) Burrell Street Liberty Road NW Orange Avenue, NW X Cove Road Lafayette Blvd NW Hershberger Road, NW X Dale Avenue SE City limit(Vinton) 13th Street SE(Vinton) Franklin Road South Jefferson Street US 220,SW Gainsboro Road Orange Avenue NW Salem Avenue,SW X X Gus Nicks Boulevard Orange Avenue NE SE City limit(Vinton) Hershberger Road Williamson Road NE Peters Creek Road NW HSIP HSIP Jamison & 13th Street SE Williamson Road SE 9th Street Bullitt Avenues Jefferson Street Franklin Road SE McLanahan Street,SE Lafayette Blvd Melrose Avenue NW Cove Road,NW Liberty Road Plantation Road NE Burrell Street NW Melrose Avenue 20th Street NW NW City limit(Salem) OIPI HSIP HSIP Memorial Ave & Campbell Avenue SW Brandon Road,SW Grandin Rd SW Orange Avenue NE City limit 20th Street NW X X (US 460) Williamson Road Hershberger Road NE South Jefferson Street X X HSIP Intersections Planning Funding Design Construction Brandon Avenue and Brambleton Avenue Brandon Avenue and Franklin Road X Brandon Avenue and Main Street Dale Avenue and 13th Street Franklin Road and Wonju Street Grandin Road and Brandon Avenue Gus Nicks Blvd and Orange Avenue X X Hershberger Road and Cove Road HSIP HSIP Melrose Avenue and Lafayette Blvd OIPI HSIP HSIP Orange Avenue and 24th Street SS SS Orange Avenue and Burrell/Gainsboro X X Gainsboro Orange Avenue and Williamson SS SS Williamson Road and 10th Street X Williamson Road and Hershberger Road HSIP Williamson Road and Liberty Road X CULTURE OF SAFETY 171 NEXT STEPS Actions to Increase Safety , r.. _ _ 3 �.. Y The Safety Action Plan identifies numerous ambitious = - projects, programs,and policy changes that will take e 1 .. . 114 time to fully implement. In the short term,ongoing ei traffic safety concerns often require a more immediate 1' 8 ' response.The SAP provides a data-driven analysis that identifies where investments are most needed 9 ;:....... and where they can have the greatest return.The City `% %% % %can use the Safety Measures to effectively reduce the negative impacts of speeding and distracted and impaired driving. Similarly,there are efficient ways to Paint markings to daylight intersections,Jersey City, NJ change elements of the roadway network that increase _ Fi 1; � fir = ..� f � $?'�'-• " �'' fir ; .. the risk of serious or deadly crashes today. (. ,, 2.' . Making Safety the Default - "" "' .= Several of the systemic safety measures can be imple- mented as part of the city's ongoing capital improve- ment program,resurfacing work,and development . projects.Opportunities include: r P • Intersection design changes such as curb extensions, Paint markings to reduce lane widths and turning radius, corner radius reductions,intersection daylighting, Jersey City,NJ and high visibility crosswalks. c — '- ra 4. • Signal timing changes and reprogramming such , - { as a Leading Pedestrian Interval,eliminating permis- r ;, i,I • it �' .'"- _. l 4,T sive left turn signals,and prohibiting Right Turn on J -ai;:. Red movements. • Slip lane closures prior to more substantial intersec- ® p ''° tion reconstruction. _:�, . � ,. • Proactively filling missing sections of sidewalk and ensure all intersections with sidewalks have the Paint and posts used to reduce curb widths,slow vehicle required curb ramps. speeds,and reduce crossing distances,Jersey City, NJ • Upgrading existing mobility lanes through the addition of vertical separation (e.g.flex posts or curbing)at intersections and specific locations where people on bikes are most vulnerable to speeding or Close Slip Lanes with Delineators turning vehicles. p •rs,, l►i 'r. n,,, -' \ • i `,9 .. •. .--,, ' - '4 -a I f ..tillic 'i Interim slip lane removal(e.g.at Cove Road and Hershberger Road NW)can be implemented quickly and inexpensively by using Flex Posts or Jersey Barriers(if needed)in advance of more substantial intersection reconstruction. 74 I NEXT STEPS While some of these measures may require site-specific assessments prior to implementation (for example, determining the impact of signal timing changes on • , ' = vehicle flow at busy intersections),most are able to be implemented without additional study—as timing, staff capacity,and funding permit.They are tried and tested safety solutions that will create greater clarity and definition to the operation of motor vehicles on city streets which will increase the safety of all road users. Neighborhood Slow Zones The impacts of traffic are disproportionately felt in areas of the city that also have the highest levels of New curb ramp poverty, lowest car ownership, and worst access to !' safe, reliable,and affordable transportation options. These are the same areas where the City is committed 4 to engaging with the community to build capacity and develop the skills necessary to help people participate fully in the local economy. One approach to addressing area-wide traffic safety concerns is to identify"neighborhood slow zones"where a suite of safety measures can be used in combination to calm traffic,to enable people to more safely walk,bike, and take transit,and to increase community cohesive- 3 ness.The Focus Area map created as part of the Safety Action Plan can be used to identify neighborhoods where this would have the greatest return on investment. - �� City staff adding Flex Posts to ShurCurb Separators, Roanoke VA CULTURE OF SAFETY 175 The cities of Philadelphia and Boston have used this o _ • i-n__ approach.In Philadelphia,the city has an application process for neighborhoods to join this program,with priority given to those in underserved areas with the Nit worst safety numbers. Neighborhoods are empowered 4- to co-create the overall traffic calming plan for their , neighborhood using a toolbox of safety measures such as raised crosswalks,traffic diverters,high visibility ' crossings, intersection daylighting,traffic circles,and curb extensions.The City can pursue Federal and/or 6fl0/2023 state funding to establish a neighborhood slow zones program,tackling one or more areas per funding cycle. Curb extension and high visibility crosswalk,Richmond, VA i �j V. — I-. ! ', . .6. r— ,e - i :. 4! Quick-build pedestrian infrastructure and visual narrow- Neighborhood traffic circle in Henrico County, VA ing,Silver Spring,MD. 76 I NEXT STEPS CONCLUSION Eliminating fatal and serious injury crashes on We can do a lot to create a Safe System: building a road- Roanoke's streets by 2040 will take a significant way network that eliminates opportunities for crashes to commitment by all City departments and regional occur at speeds the human body cannot survive.However, partners, elected officials, and individuals work- every individual in the city also shares a responsibility to ing together. It is an ambitious goal, but it can be drive safely,follow the rules of the road,and champion done. We know what the issues are, and we have implementation of this Safety Action Plan.We encourage the tools and solutions to address them. everyone to sign the Safe Streets Pledge. City departments and regional agencies must share Although this plan is focused on creating safer streets, responsibility and collaborate fully to achieve the it has the potential to deliver many additional benefits common goals of this Safety Action Plan. Individual to the community—cleaner air, quieter neighborhoods, departments and agencies must understand the impli- greater access to jobs and services, more gathering cations of their actions and think and act holistically. For spaces,a healthier and more livable community,and a example,a recent decision by the Roanoke City Public city where everyone can thrive. Schools to increase the distance students must travel It's time for action. before being eligible for school bus transport failed to consider whether there are sidewalks and crosswalks on the streets students must now walk or ride. In the future,a decision such as this should be made in collaboration with partner agencies responsible for building and maintaining sidewalks and crosswalks.The G Safety Action Plan is an all-of-government initiative that will save people's lives. We must prioritize the lives of Roanokers and visitors to t l the city when balancing safety and access for all against , '' _ the loss of a parking space or the minor inconvenience . of occasionally driving a little more slowly.If this Safety Action Plan is fully implemented,people will still be able _ to drive everywhere they can today with minimal incon- r0.."44, venience—the difference is that people will also be able Amer / walk,bike,ride a motorbike,and take transit with greater safety,dignity,and convenience.And everyone,including motorists,will get home safely at the end of the day. 78 I CONCLUSION Roanoke Vision Zero Pledge I pledge to play my part in making Roanoke streets f" safer for everyone. Because my choices and actions 7441 NO NEED • r � matter, I will: Take responsibility for the safety of others,especially the most vulnerable road users and community mem- bers including people on foot and bike,motorcyclists, �, children,the elderly,and people with disabilities.This + includes never obstructing crosswalks,sidewalks, mobility tracks, bus stops or loading zones. rillita)r Drive safely at all times by never texting or using my «, 4phone while driving,always keeping my eyes on the road, , and never driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. - '+r Follow the rules of road and all traffic laws,signs,and af ' signals. Specifically,I will always obey the posted speed • limit,stop or yield to people crossing the street,main • - tain a safe distance from those around me—including . giving cyclists at least 3 feet of space when passing,and look twice for motorcyclists. Residents are reminded of their traffic safety responsibility on painted signal boxes and ongoing information and education campaigns. 2025 Traffic Safety Campaign - Focused Driving, Safe Arriving " Focused Driving saves TRAFFIC SAFETY CAMPAIGNS lives.We encourage his year s'Focused hri fine.Sate All Nang'campaign addresses one at the greatest danger s drivers and passengers to on Roanoke streets drstr acted driyin.whether,t's texlinp adjusting the GRh.of re ar hing pledge to reduce fru uaniething in the h ackseat"ever a r,wment Of distrac-iha,Can have l ite Changing consequences.1 he campaign wilt our from June 2 to Juty 1 t and work to decrease distractions while in a distr,“4CH r urvolvel crashes hy, vehicle. " •Raising awareness of the risks.c onseq,icntes.and relevant laws of distracter)driving •E ncoui aging,focused dr ruing'tehavior by providing practical solutions to avoid disto acts •r iv Rob Issem •I„ss toring a social nnr l,ate focused drr,rirg in Roanoke " VI-ion loin C,0td.natei Visit the City's Vision Zero website for more information and to take the pledge. ROANOKE VISION ZERO PLEDGE 179 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. APPENDIX APPENDIX CONTENTS Appendix A: Crash Analysis Appendix B: Public Involvement and Outreach Report Appendix C: Safety MeasuresToolkit Appendix D: Micromobility Network Plan Appendix E: Speed Management Plan 82 I APPENDIX DESCRIPTIVE CRASH ANALYSIS The purpose of this memorandum is to document the lescri li• veresults of the descriptive crash analysis conducted as part of the Roanoke Vision Zero Safety Action Plan.This analysis will provide a data-driven basis for understand- SafetyAnalysis ing the scope of all crashes,with a particular focus on fatal and serious injury(FSI)traffic crashes in Roanoke. The analysis will articulate high-level severe crash trends Analysis Summary and identify areas of opportunity to drive severe crashes The descriptive safety analysis focuses on regional down through proven,innovative,and comprehensive safety infrastructure and policy strategies. safety trends over the past five years,analyzing crash location and severity,as well as contributing factors and crash types.Crashes are reviewed for patterns CrashData over time,a variety of crash characteristics,road user modes,and other factors. Results of the analysis are • explored in-depth in the following sections,with several Overview key findings highlighted below: Crash data was obtained through the Virginia Department • Over the last five years,crashes of all types have of Transportation (VDOT)for the most recent 5 years from been increasing. 2019 through 2023 for the City of Roanoke.This data • Despite only representing 2% of all crashes, pedes- was used as-is for all analysis products presented in trian crashes represent 38% of fatal crashes. this memo.Analyses consider a mix of road user modes, • Like pedestrian crashes, motorcycle fatalities and sometimes grouping pedestrians and bicyclists into a serious injuries make up a significant portion of all collective vulnerable road user(VRU)category. fatalities and serious injury crashes.Almost a quarter (23%)of all fatalities involve a motorcyclist. Data Limitations • About 79% of motor vehicle crashes resulted in Local law enforcement agencies submit the crash property damage only. reports that provide the raw crash data.Although crash • The most prevalent fatal and serious injury crash reports are currently the best way to obtain information types are angle and fixed object crashes. about a large quantity of crashes,they have limitations. • For fatal crashes,the leading crash types are fixed Crash severity may have limited accuracy because those object and pedestrian crashes. completing reports typically don't have medical training, . The day of the week with the highest share of fatal and victims of crashes may be unaware of internal and serious injury crashes is Friday. injuries masked by adrenalin.The actual number of crashes may be higher than is captured in the data due to ' The majority of fatal and serious injury crashes are crashes that go unreported as a result of fear,language occurring at intersections. barriers,financial concerns,and more.Crash reports • Most fatal and serious injury pedestrian crashes are may not capture accurate speed of crashes,as the first occurring on arterial roads. responders are typically on the scene after the crash has • Most fatal and serious injury bicycle crashes are occurred and witnesses outside a crash are not typically occurring on local roads. interviewed about operator speed.Even when crash • Speed is a major factor in fatal and serious reports are perfect,they do not record near misses or the injury crashes. self-limiting behavior of travelers who don't feel safe in • currently configured networks. It is useful to keep these In lower severity crashes,distracted driving is the limitations in mind when using crash data and to vet data largest factor. with priority populations as part of the planning process. Due to the complexity of crash data and its origins,some interpretations of the data may change over the course of this project which may impact specific patterns or findings resulting from analysis steps. 78 I DESCRIPTIVE CRASH ANALYSIS injury(FSI)crashes during the time,Figure 2 exhibits Crashes Over Time the changes over the last five years.The analysis found Between the years of 2019-2023, Roanoke experienced a this trend to be consistent across all modes.Appendix total of 9,455 crashes.Over the last five years,Roanoke A provides a spatial breakdown of crash locations by has seen the number of crashes continue to rise year severity and mode. over year from as low as 1,630 crashes in 2020 to a peak The general crash trends in Roanoke provide a perspec- of 2,255 crashes in 2023 as shown in Figure 1. tive on the overall safety of the City's roadways.The Of the 9,455 crashes that have occurred, 306 resulted remainder of this memo will provide further analysis of in life altering injuries to 350 people.There were 47 the patterns found in crashes throughout the city.The fatal crashes that resulted in the deaths of 49 people. findings in the analysis will inform project selection and To highlight the relative change in fatal and serious strategies throughout the remainder of the Vision Zero Safety Action Plan process. Figure 1 All crashes by year,2019-2023. 2500 2,255 2,037 2000 1,749 1,784 1,630 1500 1000 500 0 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Figure 2 Fatal and serious Injury crashes by year,2019-2023. 80 •2 69 • 60 54 54 • • • 40 20 1; 10 9 10 5 • ■ 0 ■ 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 t K.Fatal Injury t A.Severe Injury DESCRIPTIVE SAFETY ANALYSIS 179 Crash Type In Table 1 and Table 2,crash types were reviewed for Over the study period there were 9,455 crashes causing the most recent five years over the course of 2019 399 fatalities and serious injuries.Table 1 displays the through 2023 to study recent trends.There are six breakdown of fatal and serious injury crashes for the crash main types into which a crash can be categorized. most prevalent types of crashes.Angle crashes yield Crashes identified as Other/Unknown include non-colli- the most crashes with fatalities and serious injuries. sions,train collisions, backed into,and animal-involved However,when looking just at fatal crashes in Table 2, crashes.Cells with darker shading indicate higher pedestrian and fixed object collisions were the most percentage shares relative to lighter shading. prevalent crash types. Table 1 Fatal and Serious Injury crash types for all modes. FSI Collision Types-All Modes Collision Type 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Angle 22.0% 22.4% 31.3% 39.5% 34.2% 30.6% Fixed Object 27.1% 28.4% 19.4% 18.5% 12.7% 20.7% Head-on 3.4% 7.5% 13.4% 9.9% 10.1% 9.1% Other/Unknown 16.9% 7.5% 7.5% 8.6% 10.1% 9.9% Pedestrian 18.6% 20.9% 9.0% 16.0% 21.5% 17.3% Rear-end 10.2% 9.0% 14.9% 7.4% 8.9% 9.9% Sideswipe 1.7% 4.5% 4.5% 0.0% 2.5% 2.5% Grand Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 2 Fatal crash types for all modes. Fatal Collision Types-All Modes Collision Type 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total Angle 0.0% 15.4% 10.0% 11.1% 40.0% 17.0% Fixed Object 40.0% 15.4% 50.0% 33.3% 20.0% 29.8% Head-on 0.0% 7.7% 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 4.3% Other/Unknown 20.0% 7.7% 20.0% 11.1% 0.0% 10.6% Pedestrian d e}e,. Grand Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Figure 3 All crashes by mode, 2019-2023. Motor Vehicle 9,032 Motorcycle ' 173 Bicycle I 48 Pedestrian ' 204 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 80 I DESCRIPTIVE CRASH ANALYSIS Road User Mode serious injury. In stark contrast to this,one out of every three crashes involving a pedestrian (32.8%), bicyclist Figure 3 breaks down the total number of crashes of all (33.3%),or motorcyclist(33%) results in a fatal or severities for each mode over the five-year study period. serious injury. The overwhelming number of crashes involving motor The percent share of FSI crashes by mode is presented vehicles is evident:there are an average of five crashes in Figure 5,where an overrepresentation of vulnerable involving motor vehicles every single day during the road user crashes is evident.About 23.4% of all fatal five-year period. and serious injury crashes involve a vulnerable road However,when looking at Figure 4, it is also evident that user,despite them being involved in less than 3% of all nearly eight out of ten (79%)of all motor vehicle crashes crashes. Motorcycle fatal and serious crashes are also resulted in property damage only and no injuries. Only overrepresented,with 16.1% of fatal and serious injury 2.4%of motor vehicle crashes resulted in a fatal or crashes involving a motorcyclist,in contrast to making up less than 2% of all crashes. Figure 4 Breakdown of crash severity for each mode. 90% 80% — - 78.9 a, 70% L ccn 60% 57.4 — 50%- v v7 40% --37-0 33.:ro 24.0 26.c 20% -1-6-4 10%_8.8 I9.8 / -- / 4.2 6.4 2.2 / 2.4 0% • 0 0 / 0 � ■ 2 0.2 / � Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle Motor Vehicle ■ Fatal • Serious Injury ■ Visible Injury ■ Non-visible Injury ■ Property Damage Only Figure 5 Percent share of fatal and serious injury crashes by mode. Figure 6 Percent share of fatal crashes by mode. 18.9% iyAir33-3% 38.3% 4.5% 60!5% into • Pedestrian • Bicycle • Motorcycle 23.4% • Motor Vehicle DESCRIPTIVE SAFETY ANALYSIS 181 Figure 6 represents the breakdown of modes involved 31.4% of FSI crashes are denoted as"Other/Unknown", in fatal crashes.Similar overrepresentations were which is a joint classification of non-intersection, found in the analysis of fatal crashes,where 38.3% of all shoulder, and unknown locations. fatal crashes involved a pedestrian and 23.4%of fatal Table 3 reveals the breakdown for crash locations by crashes involved a motorcyclist despite these modes mode,as well as for all modes,for all crash types. representing much smaller percentage shares of trips Across all modes,the majority of crashes occurred at taken.This illustrates the relative severity of crashes intersections.A similar pattern is present for fatal and involving these vulnerable modes and their importance serious injury crashes,as presented in Table 4. Notably, in pursuing a safe system for all road users. for pedestrian FSI crashes,43.3% of the pedestrian FSI crashes were marked as other/unknown. It is unclear as Roadway Junction to if this is a reporting issue or a pattern with pedestrian FSI crashes, indicating a potential opportunity for future The crash data displayed in Table 3 and Table 4 demon- improvement of data and reporting. strate the percent share of crashes and their location relative to the roadway.There are six location types. It is important to note that about 28.8%of all crashes and Table 3 Percent share of crashes by location and mode for all crash types. Crash Location-All Crashes Location All Modes Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle Motor Vehicle Crossing 0.1% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Driveway/Alley-Access 0.6% 1.5% 0.0% 1.2% 0.6% Intersection Main Roadway 21.4% 16.7% 16.7% 19.1% 21.6% Other/Unknown ` LL .:' 12.5% 24.3% ["t;r''&2.2LVI Railroad 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Ramp 1.9% 1.0% 0.0% 2.3% 1.9% Table 4 Percent share of crashes by location and mode for fatal and serious injury crashes. Crash Location-FSI Crashes Location All Modes Pedestrian Bicycle Motorcycle Motor Vehicle Driveway/Alley-Access 0.3% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Intersection Main Roadway 17.8% 19.4% 12.5% 8.8% 20.1% Other/Unknown i 12.5% Ramp 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.5% 82 I DESCRIPTIVE CRASH ANALYSIS Functional roads. For bicycles, most FSI crashes are occurring on local roads. It is important to note that although this can Classification allow for reactive recommendations to crash trends, this does not accurately account for high-risk locations Figure 7(below)displays the breakdown of fatal and that vulnerable road users may not feel comfortable serious injury crashes by both mode and roadway func- traveling on when and where they have a choice.The tional classification.For all modes except for bicycles, facility profile analysis,documented in a separate the majority of FSI crashes are occurring on arterial memo,will help identify those possible locations. Figure 7 Percent share of crashes by mode and roadway functional classification. Motor Vehicle ,' Motorcycle Bicycle Pedestrian 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70°% 80% 90% 100% FSI Crash Share ■Freeway ■Principal Arterial ■Minor Arterial ■Collector ■Local/Other Contributing Factors driving is speeding,which was noted to be a factor in approximately 15% of all crashes. In comparison, A variety of possible contributing factors were analyzed when looking at FSI crashes,speeding is a much larger for all crashes and for FSI crashes.These factors factor,impacting over 35% of crashes.This finding is included alcohol consumption,distracted driving, consistent with industry research that demonstrates drowsy driving,drug use,and speeding. the role that speed plays in fatal and serious injury crashes.Similarly,alcohol use is correlated with more When analyzing all crash severities,as seen in Figure severe outcomes, being noted in 17% of all FSI crashes 8,distracted driving is the most prevalent factor, being a compared to only 6% of crashes of all severities. factor in about 22% of all crashes.Second to distracted Figure 8 Contributing factors by FSI and all severities. 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 111 Alcohol Distracted Drowsy Drugs Speed ■FSI 17% 20% 1% 4% 35% •All Severity 6% 22% 1% 1% 15% ■FSI *All Severity DESCRIPTIVE SAFETY ANALYSIS 183 Day of Week & Table 6 further investigates the pattern of FSI crashes by time of day and mode. For all modes,the largest Time of Day share of FSI crashes have been occurring during the PM commute peak, between 3pm and 6pm.This may Table 5 displays the percent share of fatal and serious be attributed to wide roads that allow for commuters injury crashes by day of week and time of day.The largest to produce higher impact speed and force.Additionally, share of FSI crashes were observed on Friday.Looking 38.6% of motorcycle FSI crashes occurred during the at the typical peak hours,there is a large share of FSI PM commute peak,which is much higher than the 25.5% crashes during the AM commute on Monday,Tuesday,and average across all modes.A large share of pedestrian Wednesday,with Monday being the peak,but that share FSI crashes during nighttime hours,with 46% of pedes- decreases later in the week.The PM commute did not trian FSI crashes occurring between 6pm and 12am, stand out as clearly in terms of crash frequency. which is higher than the average across modes of 37. Table 5 Percent share of fatal and serious injury crashes for all modes by day of week and time of day. FSI Crashes by Day of Week and Time of Day 12AM 3AM 6AM 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM - - - - - - Grand 3AM 6AM 9AM 12PM 3PM 6PM 9PM 12AM Total Sun 0.0% 13.3% 11.1% 7.8% 15.1% 8.9% 12.7% Mon 14.3% 8.3% 28.6% 10.0% 8.3% 15.6% 16.4% 10.7% 14.2% Tue 5.7% 8.3% 19.0% 16.7% 22.2% 16.7% 12.3% 8.9% 13.9% Wed 8.6% 16.7% 19.0% 13.3% 8.3% 16.7% 15.1% 5.4% 12.7% Thu 14.3% 8.3% 9.5% 20.0% 16.7% 17.8% 6.8% 19.6% 14.7% Fri 14.3% 16.7% 14.3% 20.0% 11.1% 10.0% 23.3% 26.8% 17.3% Sat 14.3% 8.3% 9.5% 6.7% 22.2% 15.6% 11.0% 19.6% 14.4% Grand Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Table 6 Percent share of FSI crashes by time period and mode. FSI Crashes by Time Period Time Period All Modes Pedestrian Bicyclist Motorcycle Motor Vehicle i 12AM-3AM 9.9% 9.0% 6.3% 8.8% 10.7% a 0 3AM-6AM 3.4% 6.0% 0.0% 1.8% 3.3% 6AM-9AM 5.9% 7.5% 6.3% 0.0% 7.0% a, 9AM-12PM 8.5% 9.0% 18.8% 5.3% 8.4% p 12PM-3PM 10 2" 6.0% 12.5% 12.3% 10.7% 0 3PM-6PM 25.5% 16.4% 50.0% 38.6% 23.496 's -� 6PM-9PM 20.7% 31.3% 6.3% 21.1% 18.2% a 0 9PM-12AM 15.9% 14.9% 0.0% 12.3% 18.2% Grand Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 84 I DESCRIPTIVE CRASH ANALYSIS Weather Conditions Figure 9 Weather conditions for FSI crashes in Roanoke. Weather conditions are not a major contributing factor 30 as the majority of FSI crashes occurred in clear weather 1111 conditions. Figure 9 displays the breakdown of weather 3 conditions for FSI crashes in the region. Lighting Conditions Lighting conditions are not a factor of great concern as the majority of FSI crashes for all modes occurred during either daylight or twilight. Figure 10 displays the breakdown of vulnerable road user crashes by lighting condition. However,compared to non vulnerable road - 320 user crashes,there is a significantly larger share of crashes occurring in dark,lit conditions,which is likely ■Clear Other/Unknown •Rain attributed to a higher amount of VRU crashes occurring at night.Figure 11 shows the breakdown of non-VRU crashes by lighting condition. Figure 10 Vulnerable Road User(VRU)fatal and Figure 11 Non-VRU fatal and serious serious injury crashes by lighting condition. injury crashes by lighting condition. 6.0% 1.2% - 1.5% 28.0% 41.0% 58.3 5.5% •Daylight •Twilight s Darkness-Lighted ■Darkness-Not Lighted •Other/Unknown Conclusion To support effective and sustainable roadway safety discussion,inform public engagement activities,and programming and implementation,it is essential for begin to guide safety planning and investments. Further agency staff and stakeholders to create a holistic, analysis of the study area and key roadway locations for data-driven,shared understanding of the current state investment will be identified through additional project of safety on public roads.This document has outlined studies, including high-injury and high-risk network several key trends and insights evident through avail- analyses,equity analysis, and more. able data.These findings may be used to support future CONCLUSION 185 Crash Location Maps 0 , 2 m, •11 e' I 1 I .00(•/ • • , ,, Roanoke Crashes .: ,,, t (2019-2023) e �-.% N Eg3N8E 2G€R RD U0 ' . , ,•• , • • s•. t ,• .• • (� T - • rt yW •.• Z . i t ,..•. .1: ... : • ? fii • s„ , .. _Air i • • • u` Legend 02) •�• Crash Location • • f• 'v • Fatal Crash --- J Incapacitating Injury Crash •'• . • Minor Injury or Property Damage Only 86 I DESCRIPTIVE CRASH ANALYSIS 0 1 2nd ` Roanoke Bicycle i 4 y p` Crashes (2019-2023) W i rc t NE "Ir. -,, - 51€ . _i 1 (R,„,i ,,)f*1 :.a 1. mJ • 1 K 91 f� _ar ORANR,APt N..-� / , t , • ti -., f- :3.i t j ,' r, 7 1 k ` Legend © Crash Location • Fatal Crash • Incapacitating Injury Crash • Minor Injury or Property Damage Only 0 1 2mi Roanoke Motor Vehicle ��� C'' :..• '• , . 1 Crashes (2019-2023) e•`ii- • • •• .w.fr ::.4 "; •.! A.-; ••"{ ter oy,;;� 1'' • ' �" f • %sit tom. '; t • 1, . fir+.• _.. j t•-•p•/ • t• {•••:.*--. / t 1 • . .f . \ . .._ ...,...,•s• E`or ` .,y „.. pf. L' ;wee • Legend 4:, . •� • . • • Crash Location • • Fatal Crash • • Incapacitating Injury Crash • Minor Injury or Property Damage Only CRASH LOCATION MAPS 187 , Roanoke Motorcycle •. • . Crashes (2019-2023) • • 4 . 4�T6 •° ., • • i . • • Legend © Crash Location • • Fatal Crash �- Incapacitating Injury Crash • Minor Injury or Property Damage Only 0 1 2mi Roanoke Pedestrian _, Crashes (2019-2023) ek HE0.§ i r ,-.` • • • •f•• 1 t-%> \i—C...4:'{`r •• i.{. � . s • 4 f r�M1 • . w �, , . • •• • • , • • • •• 7 ` Legend 12) `. Crash Location • Fatal Crash - • Incapacitating Injury Crash • Minor Injury or Property Damage Only 88 I DESCRIPTIVE CRASH ANALYSIS SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN Community Engagement Summary Introduction National Night Out The City of Roanoke is committed to eliminating traffic violence.Achieving this challenging vision requires `+' a comprehensive understanding the community's safety needs,concerns,and priorities.An analysis of V roadway conditions as well as where and why crashesLi occur provides a data-driven foundation for the Safety Action Plan (the Plan). However,the objective crash , � o data often only tells a part of the story. For example, . . � `t the crash data doesn't reflect near misses,the streets • -- 3 people avoid because they feel too unsafe,or local destinations people wish they could safely walk or bike >... - .. to but don't feel as if they can do that today. Feeling safe and comfortable on the streets in your community is ..;,,A,....... �` an inherently personal experience and can only really ' ,. ` be captured through direct engagement with people a moving around Roanoke.This is a critical step towards ,. `, `-� . ensuring the recommendations in the Plan reflect the << * needs of the community. - ,° Community Engagement for the Plan centered around a " `` ,t''' week of in-person events,walking audits,and conver- .4 - sations with neighborhood and advocacy groups. Key ,,.` , i + events throughout the week included: Itt y • Hearing from local bicycle, pedestrian advocates . it. • Hosting pop-up tables at two National Night . ., , Out locations +� t. • Leading walking audits along three High Injury --- 111 Network corridors;a fourth site visit was completed on Williamson Road in September .;:' ' -•'', .- • Meeting with members of Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates and Community Policing Division of the t,"' Roanoke Police Department I t. F • Updating and gathering input from the Project +' t _ s Advisory Committee '_� h fly` \(iY4it, -.....,-,.-4--t,'i.,'' 90 I SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT National Night Out(NNO) is an annual community-build- k ,`. ing event designed to promote positive relationships .r ` between neighbors and first responders in a fun casual atmosphere.The project team joined two block-party �� • E style NNO events on August 6th,one at McCadden Park ie _ in the Melrose-Rugby neighborhood and one at Fire 0 -, '14�+'.• Station#8 in South Roanoke.Community members i.. ,u, . enjoyed food and music and made their way through ,i �;A: • a series of booths representing the Roanoke police department, parks and recreation,and other civic and F .r ` non-profit groups. At the Vision Zero booth,people had the opportunity to ry- 1 share their thoughts and concerns on current traffic " ,i=' .safety issues in Roanoke.They also learned about the Safe System Approach and the City's vision for safe I I ' transportation in the future. Maps and boards at the wl booths highlighted the sobering number of crashes that f ",: have occurred in the past years and provided space for -2 participants to share and rank their top safety concerns. t The project team also handed out business cards directing people to the project website and online survey 4y " f tip ', and vision zero branded stickers and bike lights. a • t zf, ,a 'J Y y ,4 f . R -‘-''''''..-'''' ':::1.:,'' . +11 r' -• # * K a -. ., )4e W ille 1: .W0 of :‘',,14,444r.e.„0— pia �: >ANUKE .. i 1°' ir i - ...,, it 1 LEARN MORE AND ` 4 TAKE THE SURVEY! •mot ''•' iol pot .' -4a 4. 1 b ❑ •f roanokeva govNisionZero • ., F. ZERC: ..mod. '' ROANOKE - ,4,- ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 191 Takeaways • Crosswalks and pedestrian signals at Participants used sticker dots to share their feelings on major intersections the issues that make Roanoke's streets feel unsafe and • Much needed culture change to discourage speeding the behaviors they see on the roadway that worry them and running red lights the most. • Increased visibility for pedestrians in crosswalks In addition to the multiple-choice answers,community members also shared a variety of open-end responses • Lighting,especially in areas where people are com- to the question of how Roanoke can eliminate fatal and muting after dark severe injury crashes on roadways and achieve Vision • Improved maintenance,especially to address poor Zero. Key themes included: pavement conditions and overgrown sidewalks • Neighborhood traffic calming such as speed cushions and mini traffic circles "What are the biggest issues that make you feel unsafe on Roanoke's streets?" No sidewalks or places to bike 36% Dangerous intersections 28% No crosswalks or 26% pedestrian signals Poor visibility and sightlines Poor street lighting 16% Wide streets that encourage driving too fast Streets with lots of driveways, alleys,and intersections "Which of these behaviors or other factors on the roadway worry you most?" Speeding 39% Failure to stop or yield at intersections 31% Distracted driving 30% Aggressive driving Trucks,buses,and/or 5% large vehicles Impaired driving 92 I SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT Walking Audits 0 9 Roanoke's High Injury Network highlights corridors with o n the highest density of fatal and severe injury crashes 9 Q 9 over the past five years.While the crash data analysis is . 9 a powerful tool for identifying hot-spots across the city, ; a understanding the nuances of these corridors requires experiencing them in person.During the week the project o team lead three walking audits.These are practical,work- Walk ing meetings for staff,community members,and other Start e stakeholders where they can discuss the safety needs of 9 9 c, each location. The walks balanced in-depth discussions 9 at key locations along each route with the opportunity for conversations and observations along the way. - While much of the walks focused on identifying "prob "� r .j+i lems" and safety concerns along the route, participants ,ft Y also pointed out many recent infrastructure investments 4'4.- 1414-1 a and discussed potential interventions to increase safety °, " for all modes.Stops along the route also highlighted • community assets and destinations such as the Envision ,"> Community Center and Sweet Donkey Cafe. Southeast Roanoke - Bullitt Avenue &Jamison Avenue ti ,` This route highlighted the newly constructed two-way mobility track on 9th street,as well as the recurring safety issues on the one-way street pair of Bullitt , Avenue and Jamison Avenue between 13th St SE and 7th St SE. Key takeaways from the Bullitt-Jamison route: • While curb extensions and on-street parking form 'r'% ' ' l chicanes along both Bullitt and Jamison,the two lanes of traffic in the same direction still encourage _ high vehicle speeds. • Because of the speeds along the corridor and the fear4.4 ' of being sideswiped, many people park up and over II the curb fully blocking the sidewalks. . .a ... • Wide turning radii and slip lanes at 13th Street SE and Jamison Avenue create long exposed pedestrian ��� crossings.This area also has lots of pedestrian activity '� with people walking and waiting outside of the Dollar ' ' [ - , General and the Presbyterian Community Center. ' , I • Within minutes of completing the walk,the team !` t'i ,7: . + tin`' witnessed a multi-vehicle crash at the intersection of -,t - - ---= 9th street and Bullitt Avenue, f • Dale Avenue SE is a potential alternative east-west route to promote for people on bicycles; currently most people were seen riding (or walking) on the sidewalk in this area. ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 193 Southwest Roanoke - Franklin Road ' = it cklitaalre Beginning at River's Edge Park,this route focused onthe main corridors in and around the Crystal Springr. Neighborhood.While the area is primarily residential, �*'sidewalk gaps and skewed intersections at Franklin, 174' Broadway,Avenham,and McClanahan create numerous y� safety issues for all modes. Key takeaways from the73:: Q Franklin Road route: • The unique skew of the intersection at McClanahan and Franklin,the angle of the hanging traffic lights, and the lack of pedestrian signals,make it difficult for a pedestrian to know when it is safe to cross. kt • Sidewalk gaps throughout the area forced the project team to walk in the road for much of the route. 44. j Sidewalks end especially abruptly on Wiley Drive just Y ° '' '' •a ;.,,',.4,.' 4.,., :-' i ',� "": " ` ii, before Franklin Road and on McClanahan Street at lit- ' ` Jefferson Street. 0.- : • Despite being marked as 25 MPH,wide lanes and ", ;. �t,,' . sparsely used on-street parking along Avenham 'e.- •4`.' Avenue make the street feel much faster.This is the location where a child was struck and killed by a vehicle in 2024. It . • Franklin Road is very hard to cross for people on foot or bike.There are no pedestrian signals at the inter- sections with Wonju St and McCalanahan/Brandon Ave. The overhead signals for motor vehicles are difficult to see when waiting to cross,so it is unclear when vehicles are going to be stopped or moving. _ • 0 • Franklin Road has striped mobility lanes. However, j« ' '- b ' they are minimum width and adjacent to high speed _ and high-volume travel lanes,making them uncom- fortable for all but the most confident rider. — • w -- ____� __ Keep E �h Q r SafeShy , . De wp , , N....„ / ,- .: .. ,. .. „:,.-,_, ..... IN 'Mk. „,. .„,,.,„..,., ,,,,,„,,,,_-,_,_,,,,,...,,,_. : , .. ,, _:,.,„.-- .. Ai,,m, ,.\. .,... -- ^R a�•' more a . 'v+� - '.i'.---.--...- .,, \`�. woke or9,rral/icSa/tv .-, 3,] _-. ,., 94 I SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT Northwest Roanoke - Melrose Avenue ° This route showcased the recent traffic calming on Salem Turnpike which uses street art to highlight curb ° ° o ' ° extensions, pedestrian crossings,and medians.The = ° + 5 0 ° °, • grassroots project was developed with the collaboration of the community,however,significant safety issues still , , exist in the area. ` ° 9 ' 9 3• - Key takeaways from the Melrose Avenue route: o § 9 o ' 9 0 • Despite paralleling US 460 (Melrose Avenue),Salem ° °' ' ' P ,. Turnpike sees a high volume of truck traffic.The wide .. . o turning radii of the trucks has already taken a toll on the recently installed flex posts. • Even with the curb extensions,the crossings dis- `" - Air tances at Salem Turnpike and 24th Street remain ' ,.M long,and the project team witnessed many people ; '''=� still choosing to cross midblock. - —� . • Slip lanes at 24th Street and Melrose Avenue create a , ^• maze of crosswalks between the splitter islands and ,,, 1101111: . . ,--.— the edges of the street.At some points the crosswalk distance at the intersection is twice as long as the roadway width leading up to it. • The planted median on Melrose Avenue is too narrow for a turning vehicle to safely turn into.While the median creates a refuge island for midblock . crossings,there are no marked crosswalks along the _ ;7. corridor and no cuts to allow a wheelchair,walker, ---,, stroller,or bike to cross. - i;i)� d-' ` • Redevelopment of the Melrose Plaza area will add a - ~ m major destination to the neighborhood and will lead to ill „` K� ,L,,,,t even more pedestrian activity. residents during the walk . ' i t ; • Striped mobility lanes,even when marked with a double white line,are insufficient to accommodate , most people on bikes-all but the most confident rider will use the sidewalk if they have to travel on Melrose. .I ' .. ." Lafayette Blvd NW has a narrow,striped mobility lane on only the northbound side 1 . "° r,, r IIQ :3.. ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 195 Online Survey and Web Map • Visibility and safety go hand in hand: People identi- fied many areas where complex,skewed,or poorly The project team sought to hear from as many people designed intersections lead to poor visibility and in Roanoke as possible.We created multiple avenues unsafe conditions for all modes. Inadequate lighting for engagement including an on-line survey and and other obstructions often further limit visibility in interactive map for those willing and able to provide these areas. comments electronically.The survey was open from • High-speed arterials with poor bicycle and pedestrian May 8th—October 31, 2024.Several themes emerged infrastructure are the primary places where people from the 189 responses and over 350 comments on the feel unsafe.Comments added to the interactive map interactive map. further confirm the needs on many of the top scoring • People in Roanoke have felt the personal cost of traf- High Injury Network corridors.Willaimson Road,Orange fic violence. Nearly half of all respondents(43%) have Avenue,9th Street,Campbell Avene,Hershberger Road, been personally injured or know a family member, and the Broadway-Franklin-McClanahan triangle were friend,or acquaintance who was killed or seriously top corridors where people identified feeling unsafe or injured in a crash. had safety improvement ideas. • Speeding and lack of bicycle and pedestrian infra- • Survey responses confirm need for more represen- structure continue to be the number one concerns. tative engagement. Despite African Americans making Like the feedback received in-person,top safety up nearly 1/3 of Roanoke's population,less than 2% concerns from survey respondents included danger- of the respondents identified as Black or African ous intersections,lack of sidewalks and places to American.While comments on the interactive map do bike,speeding,and distracted driving. Many believe highlight several key unsafe corridors,there is a stark that reducing speed limits and adding traffic calming lack of comments in the north-western quadrant of the measures,especially in residential areas,would city and historically black neighborhoods.Because of significantly increase safety. this,the Melrose Avenue walking audit and outreach at • Respondents see stricter enforcement as the NNO event in McCadden park specifically focused on primary way to change behavior.Unsafe behaviors hearing from Black residents in Northwest Roanoke. like speeding,aggressive driving, running red lights, and not yielding to pedestrians all contribute signifi- cantly to respondents' safety concerns. Many called for stricter enforcement of traffic laws and installation of speed cameras. 96 I SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT Figure 12 Survey Comments for the Online Interactive Map ,: E- a t i 0 • �O�3 0 Q- ---- S tik 0• ..', ': 1 kr A.--__ ••- p © . ' r _T- • w HERI-15 \ R ��,\ i U ORRNGEA T' Pr'''' VE �CLP� NW ' /N. �''` '' �: :llinft ,' irk gro 1 ,_S I Yt tiRgNDON A�ESW � f . • 5� 0 1 � __ c Survey Responses 3 A location where A feel unsafe 0 A location wherq'I feel safe A location for a transportation 0 1 2 mi safety improvement idea I 1 I 1 I © 1'OOLE DESIGN ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 197 Stakeholder Meetings Envision Williamson Road Task Force The project team presented to the task force in Stakeholder meetings are facilitated group conver- September and discussed the prominence of Williamson sations focused on the needs, interests,and local Road in all the various levels of crash analysis carried knowledge of a specific group of people.These meetings out for the Safety Action Plan. Feedback included a also help strengthen connections between the city and request to review more historical crash data and to the local partners who will play important roles in the include behavioral issues in the crash analysis. implementation of the Plan once it is adopted. Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates(RNA) PedalSafe ROA and Regional Greenways Commission The project team met with two representatives of the The project team participated in a community meeting RNA at the Envision Center on Salem Turnpike.They hosted by PedalSafe ROA and Regional Greenways confirmed the importance of traffic safety to all neigh- organization at the Big Lick Brewing Company on Salem boyhood associations in the city and discussed ways to Ave SW.We presented the goals and objectives of the ensure the associations could participate in the Safety Safety Action Plan and requested attendees participate Action Plan development.We identified opportunities in the on-line survey and interactive map.We also to speak to the meeting of neighborhood association promoted them to highlight major issues and priorities presidents on September 30 and to meet with more via information boards at the meeting venue. individual association board members in person in future visits. Neighborhood Presidents Meeting Roanoke Police Department The project team participated in the September meeting of presidents of Roanoke Neighborhood Associations. Community Policing Division We presented the goals,objectives,crash analysis and The project team met with several members of the early outreach findings and had a discussion about RPD from the Community Policing Division to gain their safety issues and ways in which neighborhood associ- insight into traffic safety issues they see and hear about ations can be involved in the plan.We received general from community members.They noted that community confirmation that this is a big issue for all groups. members raise traffic and safety concerns in virtually Specific concerns were raised about traffic safety in the every interaction, regardless of the original reason for neighborhoods around Orange Ave to the west of 1-581. the call out.Other topics of discussion included: • Acknowledgment of the particular vulnerability of people experiencing homelessness to traffic safety issues;they have high levels of exposure at all hours of the day and night. • The positive impact of interventions such as the traffic circle at 13th and Wise,and the traffic calming on Bullit and Jamison in reducing traffic-related issues, especially speeding (although it remains an issue) 98 I SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT • ''. Y ar ; .MicromobiIity '' ` „. J , Network Engagement ' ' '''' 4-7 0 M � : � Yl µ� .{ wp Week �• � . � to - •S . . ...,T .0„ D. In September 2024 the project team returned to 1- t .� �{... h t.ayr ....- 74¢ Roanoke for another week of in-person engagement. � � •., �. , •�;, Events during this week built on the momentum of the `T ? Vision Zero Safety Action Plan and zoomed in to focused A 1` ; ' I specifically on Roanoke's future micromobility network. "; Yw•.7_; - . _ ,., While a Vision Zero Plan aims to eliminate traffic �'�� 3A* violence for all modes, Roanoke's commitment to zero - -� fatal and serious injury crashes is deeply connected to ;�— r _I t building out a network that is safe and comfortable for +►riit iiita- ° - ' people of all ages and abilities. '"` �, E� 1t . Roanoke's greenway system and proximity to single "" k-- '41 track trails make it a destination for cycling enthusiasts. sir.,.._sir.,.._ — 410.. There is also an increasing desire for micromobility togi- become a safe,convenient option for commuting and . everyday trips beyond just for recreation and exercise. ` While the city has made investments in on-street x , infrastructure in recent years,significant barriers still s . - , exist. Limited connectivity, high-speed arterial roads, and narrow,striped lanes where infrastructure does exist,often keep all but the most confident riders from ; , comfortably traveling through Roanoke. ;'4t..: Community engagement during the week took place • . in a variety of formats, but centered around two key t�'. .A t, - _ questions to lay the groundwork for Roanoke's future 3 k Y 'Ili'' ' 3 . ,.. micromobility network: ..� 4Y ; • What are the top destinations that you would like to ` ^� ti;:," be able to safely and comfortably reach by bike and/ ? # "~ Y or scooter? � _ N ,, • What are the top corridors that Roanoke should invest t in for micromobility users? a�# t"" u r�s These questions lead to conversations with community I 1 advocates, business owners,and a variety of residents across the community who shared valuable input on • `ti ; what it would take to truly make Roanoke a micromobil- �`, . ity community for all. ,.:' . x f - ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 199 Group Ride Pop-Ups Pop-up events benefit from meeting users in the spaces a ibeto be able to salNy and p ante should invest In for people the bicycling? • sertabty reach by bike? they already naturally gather, rather than asking people ✓V III U® 10 to go out of their way to provide feedback. Durring ej the engagement week the project team attended two T evening group rides,one at Bick Lick Brewing and one at , Cardinal Bike Shop. Community members stayed around _ III � 1111 after the rides to share a wealth of local knowledge. This input,often from years or decades of riding around Roanoke, provided insights into the value of the city's ` recent investments in micromobility infrastructure and 4'IS r the significant needs that still exist especially along and across high-speed roads that cut across the city. ' Top destinations people said they would like to be able c.� 3• to access by bike: .f j • Downtown Roanoke • Schools—James Madison - _ 1 ‘0• Grocery Stores—Kroger, Middle School and others `' _,� -- specifically at Towers on Williamson Road t' vil .s Shopping Center • Brandon/Brambleton ,, > . • Parks and Recreation Area ... „/ _� . ,� N. Areas—Locations like • Carilion Memorial . . �•_ Wasena,Greenways, Hospital lip Carvins Cove,Fishburn . West End Farmer's Park,and Dr. Pepper Park Market Top corridors where people suggested investments would make the greatest impact: _ ; •c_-� ma _ _• Brambleton Road • Peters Creek Road o g .�' ' • Orange Avenue • Colonial Avenue --- ` • , • Melrose Avenue • Electric Road ll • :;i • • Route 460 • Brandon Avenue , k ' • Garst Mill Road • Jefferson Street • Franklin Road F . f— r le r x. „' 'mpr-. 4 , Arl ''''''- ' -I. WM- \ r VES ' <x�, t ' t f0 100 I SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT PedalSafe Meting The project team joined PedalSafe's September meeting •O, to share how the proposed micromobility network will fit into the City's larger Vision Zero efforts and hear , #_ } from the organization's members on where investment is most needed across the community. People shared i destinations they would like to be able to reach like schools,grocery stores,and nearby trail networks, as well as key corridors that could form the backbone of '' Roanoke's future network.The resulting marked up maps served as a foundation for draft network. 'k— _ • a = S;f. \� s- , _. VII — — 'Nig Rom:. g < tc� ^ r, F�� y 1.+ Y AI .'d i p 1 ` a {//jam, `r! _ j S,,1,': -. 7 )) :: 1 G� ' ,' . ,,1.:. , al 1-1 ' ;2 � J% j MINIM if11 1 i Ai, Y . \r �, r` r_ -ter" • i - , i --: r # 0 f - + N • slibk, 4 s ;' ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1101 GoFest and Jefferson Street Pilot Project ., ' Roanoke's annual GoFest provided an excellent o i, _ f nity to spread the word about the micromobility plan and Jr demonstrate in real time what it could look like to provide N1 _ dedicated space for micromobility users.Over the course - ,- , v 5 " 'N' of the weekend,Jefferson Street was converted from a , four-lane road to two-lane road with separated mobility lanes in each direction.Users of all ages and abilities __r - �✓ were able to comfortably travel the length of Jefferson 'v-Sii I 1 - 4�M(It Street to and from the heart of the festival downtown. .r; F . f y , "i 'tatSigns along the corridor highlighted the safety benefits of ,e - the pilot project and pointed people to an online survey to share feedback on their experience. 10 ; -.1 r .1- ....11..... .._ , .;,,,,,,,„t , ,, ,,, . . . --f ,; N R / . l r .� i iii E I --_ Air (011,fp/ . . ,,,,k, a.> a„i _ .; fir. T , J ids„ •.. — • .4 r - - r — 1 'c`' I412; \ ----- p . •_ 102 I SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT Takeaways Throughout GoFest community members provided input on the future micromobility network and on the Jefferson Street Pilot Project.Over 100 people scanned the QR codes along the corridor and responded to the online survey.While the project was primarily intended to highlight dedicated spaced for riders,the majority of respondents felt that the pilot also improved travel for people walking and driving as well. "How would you rate the safety and comfort for people walking, bicycling,and driving along Jefferson Street?" - It feels better that before the demonstration It feels same as it was before the demonstration It feels worse than it was before the demonstration 5% 89% 97% : 28% 68% 1% Walking Bicycling Driving "Which of the following describes your experience at the intersections along the Jefferson Street Demonstration Project?" I felt safer on a bicycle because of the designated bicycle lanes 65% I felt like the intersections made sense for everyone 56% I felt safer crossing the street because of the shorter crossing distances 40% I felt like I could see people walking and bicycling more easily while driving I felt like the intersections were confusing 11% ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1103 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Corner Radius Reduction N/A EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION i 1 i` �.d red.: v s a ik � • 7116 W ,. PRIMARY MODES r 'v' r - 3 ... ,, ,, t ,r. lir r r ESTIMATED TIMELINE ,,.�' ,� Purpose O - To decrease motor vehicle turning speeds at intersections and shorten pedestrian crossing distances. ESTIMATED COST Description Arterial,Collector,and Local Reducing corner radii effectively slows down motor vehicle turning speeds. These reductions can be implemented using temporary materials such APPLICABLE STREET TYPES as bollards and planters,or through curb reconstruction.Corner radius reductions are similar to curb extensions (bulb-outs)and are often utilized together for enhanced effectiveness. MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS _-- " " '••" �` wore BIKESAFE . = - r Montgomery County,MD Vision Zero Toolkit r . rt NACTO Urban Street Design Guide` : MORE INFORMATION f. t )yF° Reducing corner radius using shurcurb and public art.Salem Turnpike, NW,Roanoke 106 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Safety Benefits Expected Crash Reduction • Lowers turning speeds of motor vehicles Reducing the turning radius of a corner has several positive impacts on key elements of crashes involving all • Improves visibility for both motorists and pedestrians roadway users,and especially pedestrians and bicyclists. • Shortens pedestrian crossing distances • A smaller turning radius will ensure that most motor • Expands pedestrian space at the curb vehicles go slower than they would with a wide sweeping turn.Lower speeds are associated with less Systemic Safety Potential frequent and less severe crashes across the board. This is a systemic safety improvement. • The slower a driver is traveling,the more likely they are to stop or yield for a pedestrian crossing the street. Location Guidance • Building a corner with a tight turning radius will minimize the distance pedestrians have to cross and • Effective at most intersections,especially where truck thus reduce their exposure. traffic is minimal. Curb radius reduction may reduce turning speeds, which may increase motor vehicle yielding to other Design Guidance street users and reduce severity of collisions that occur. (Thomas,2015). • Radii should be designed for a turning speed of 15 mph or lower(NACTO). Roanoke Experience • Narrow streets with curbside travel lanes may require The older street network,such as you find in downtown larger corner radii since the actual corner radius is equivalent to the effective turning radius. Similar Roanoke and close in neighborhoods,has curb radii considerations apply to streets with curb extensions. that are small and designed for slower speed turns. Elsewhere, Roanoke streets typically have very wide • If funding is limited for full curb reconstruction, intersections with very large turning radii,which encour- interim materials like epoxy, planters,and bollards age higher speeds and lower motorist yielding rates. may be utilized. • The design must accommodate emergency Potential Applications vehicles to ensure they can fully access the Reducing turning radii to achieve turning speeds of 15 intersection while turning. mph or less should become a default design element and • Mountable truck aprons can be integrated to encour- be built into resurfacing projects as well as reconstruc- age smaller turning radii for light vehicles while still tion and new construction projects.Wide,fast turning permitting larger vehicles to make turns. movements are a pervasive issue in Roanoke and they • Curb radii that are too small may result in vehicles contribute significantly to the crash story and public driving onto the curb or sidewalk. concerns around traffic safety throughout the community. 10 • Elk • • Y Ilik _ • Reducing corner radius and crossing distance with paint; Using paint to reduce corner width, Richmond,VA adding loading zone,Ashland, VA ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1107 Crossing Island Median 46% - 56% FHWA 2021 EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION • epti) 400:000. .44ffia 41. PRIMARY MODES (11 ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Provides a safe refuge area for pedestrians in middle of wide streets.Can also reduce the speed of motor vehicle traffic. ESTIMATED COST Description A pedestrian crossing island is typically a raised median in the center of a Arterial and Collector roadway with space for pedestrians to wait safely while crossing multi-lane, wide streets.Crossing islands can be used on a variety of streets but most APPLICABLE STREET TYPES often are found on wider arterial roadways where multiple lanes and higher speeds create intimidating pedestrian crossings.Short-term installations may include paint and bollards but are not recommended for long term use. ++� Safety Benefits • May lower motor vehicle speeds at pedestrian crossings. MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS • Increases visibility of pedestrians to motorists. • Provides space for pedestrians to wait while crossing wide streets. FHWA STEP Tech Sheet • Allows pedestrians to cross one direction of travel,and thus fewer lanes, NACTO Urban Street Design Guide at a time. PEDSAFE MORE INFORMATION Systemic Safety Potential Can be applied systemically to mid-block crossings and intersections along multi-lane roadways. 108 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Location Guidance Roanoke Experience • Appropriate at both midblock and A small number of Roanoke's busier streets have exam- intersections crossings. pies of medians and refuge islands for pedestrians. For example,the crosswalk at Bullitt and 10th Street SE has • Most useful at intersections of multi-lane roadways, a small pedestrian refuge built into the raised median or uncontrolled crossings. that was implemented to slow vehicle speeds.The large • May also be applied at uncontrolled crossings where intersection of Orange Avenue and Hollins includes a there is an insufficient gap in traffic for pedestrians to small pedestrian refuge area in the median to enable cross the full roadway. people to cross one direction of traffic at a time. Design Guidance Potential Applications Medians and pedestrian refuges are an important • Crossing islands should be at least 6 feet wide,8-10 element of a proactive approach to eliminating risk on feet is preferred,especially if the crossing is shared Roanoke roadways. Major roadways on the high-risk with bicyclists and/or greenway users. network should be prioritized for installation of medi- • Ideally,refuge areas buffering a crossing island should ans and refuges. For example, Brandon Avenue west be at least 40 feet long to better protect pedestrians. of Edgewood Street has a wide median (sometimes This space may also allow for additional landscaping landscaped,often asphalt) but no pedestrian crossing and stormwater management opportunities. facilities.Similarly, Melrose Avenue NW to the west of • Cut-outs or ramps are required for crossing islands. 24th Street has a wide median but very few crossing Their width should match the width of the crosswalk. points and no official pedestrian refuge areas. • Crossing islands at intersections should have a "nose" ,� ; extending beyond the crosswalk to ensure drivers do not enter the median area. • Mark with high-visibility crosswalk markings. �* • At mid-block locations install advance yield lines. . • At mid-block locations MUTCD requires additional warning signs. • Combine with curb extensions to reduce vehicle 0 Ei E G . speeds and minimize pedestrian crossing distance. •'''-�Y v iirr .. t ice" li __ i a i J '.a "_ .� .„ r ,'l l—r -z i• --` - _ ...;,-tea . Crossing island at roundabout on Colonial Road, Crossing island at school entrance,Jersey City, NJ SW Roanoke ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1109 Curb Extensions/Bulb-outs 13% Journals EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION \ t s•: t ocpb PRIMARY MODES ski (11 ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose $$ Curb extensions,also known as bulb-outs,are designed to enhance pedestrian visibility, reduce vehicle turning speeds,encourage pedestrians to cross at designated locations,shorten crossing distances,and improve ESTIMATED COST sightlines by preventing parking at corners. Only on roads with on-street parking Description lanes or shoulders. Curb extensions extend the sidewalk or curb,often replacing a short section of APPLICABLE STREET TYPES the parking lane,shoulder,or excess pavement at intersections.They effec- tively narrow the roadway at intersections and crossing points.This visual and physical modification enhances the ability of both pedestrians and motorists ♦ to see each other,promoting safer interactions.Additionally,curb extensions /�� can helpslow down traffic at intersections.When appropriate, ppropriate,they may also incorporate landscaping and stormwater management features. MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer NACTO Urban Street Design Guide PEDSAFE x MORE INFORMATION11111 ter. Curb Extensions on Gainsboro Road NW 110 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Safety Benefits Roanoke Experience • Reduce turning speeds of motor vehicles There are permanent concrete curb extensions in several downtown locations including at City Market; • Prevent parking in or close to a crosswalk Franklin Street SE(at Mill Mountain Greenway); and • Increase pedestrian visibility Campbell Avenue (at Roanoke Police Dept.).They are • Shorten pedestrian crossing distance part of the Gainsboro Road project (e.g.,at Patton Avenue NW).Curb extensions on Salem Turnpike at the Systemic Safety Potential Envision Center are created with paint and flex posts. This is a systemic measure that can address safety Potential Application issues for users of all modes. These are a key element of the systemic safety action Design Guidance plan for Roanoke.Curb extensions should become part of the default design of intersections as part of the • Should not extend more than 6 feet from the curb. city's resurfacing program.There are priority locations throughout the downtown and along the high-risk • Turning radii of larger vehicles needs to be considered network.Curb extensions should also be used n con- when designing curb extensions. junction with greenway crossings and access/egress • Design should facilitate adequate drainage. points wherever possible. . , T Expected Crash Reduction ; . `:40 ,°� Initial research findings demonstrated that curb extension may be effective at increasing driver yielding , and improving pedestrian safety(Johnson, 2005). " '" �``= Subsequent research shows that the combination of a -�' -k '' . . pedestrian refuge island (median),stop bars,and curb extensions was effective at reducing waiting times to '•<,`:" cross,decreasing percentage of vehicles that pass before yielding,and increasing the distance that vehi- cles yield in advance of a crosswalk.(Hengel,2013.) 1,4 Additional Information • Curb extensions can also be deployed as bus stop r: bulb outs, potentially improving bus travel times by decreasing the amount of time buses may take to Curb Extensions in Gordonsville, VA merge back into traffic after a stop. ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1111 Curb Ramps N/A EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION AD (St 4 PRIMARY MODES 4001740111i % 4 44Z4ibs, CIO } ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Provides access between the sidewalk and roadway for people using © wheelchairs,strollers,walkers,crutches,or bicycles,and people who have any additional mobility or vision restrictions.Accessible curb ramps must be present to mark a crosswalk. ESTIMATED COST Description Required at all intersections and midbtock pedestrian crossings. Curb ramps are important safety and accessibility tools that provide seam- less access between the sidewalk and street crossings.Curb ramps are APPLICABLE STREET TYPES required at all intersections and midblock pedestrian crossings,as man- dated by the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and 1990 Americans with Disabilities FHWA Designing Sidewalks Act (ADA). By mandate,curb ramps must have a slope of no more than 1:12 or 8.33%. In addition to the appropriate slope,curb ramps should have trun- PEDSAFE cated domes,or another form of detectable warning,for visually impaired PROWAG Chapter 4 users,as well as level landings at both the top and bottom of the ramp. For MORE INFORMATION further guidance and specific details,please refer to the ADA and proposed Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines(PROWAG). Safety Benefits • Allow for all sidewalk users to access sidewalks safely and directly at street crossings. • The change in texture provided by the truncated domes warns pedestrians with vision impairments that they are approaching a street crossing. 112 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Systemic Safety Potential Curb ramps should be included as a matter of routine at every sidewalk and driveway crossing of roadway. Key Implementation Considerations Separate curb ramps should be provided at each ;u, crosswalk of an intersection rather than a single ramp on the corner for both crosswalks,where feasible.This provides additional orientation guidance to pedestrians with vision impairments. Curb ramps must be incorporated in all newly con- Curb ramp replacement Melrose and 15th NW Roanoke strutted and altered roadway projects, in addition to existing facilities receiving upgrades. t , Expected Crash Reduction • • A crash reduction rate for curb ramps has not yet been determined, but they are required for providing access to sidewalks which have a 65-89% crash reduction rate. Roanoke ExperienceAro- ,.., The City has an active program for installing and replacing curb ramps. Implementation is incon- sistent because multiple agencies are installing them in different locations as part of stormwater, transportation,and development projects. • Potential Applications New curb ramps as part of sidewalk improvements, Curb ramps are a requirement and a systemic Goinsboro Road NW safety measure that is applied whenever a sidewalk is built or repaired. — ' - • i _" 11111111.11111111 Curb ramps with tight corner radius,Richmond, VA ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1113 Daylight Intersections 30% FHWA EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION P a ‘ k IA1 PRIMARY MODES ! ` `f ` • ;•=i" 111* ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Daylighting enhances sightlines between drivers and pedestrians at $ — $$ street crossings. ESTIMATED COST Description Daylighting is achieved through the use of signs, pavement markings,curb extensions, planters,or vertical delineators to limit on-street parking (or All streets other obstructions)within 20-30 feet of a pedestrian crossing. APPLICABLE STREET TYPES Safety Benefits • Prevents motor vehicles from parking too close to crosswalks, providing ++ + pedestrians with a safe space to wait and ensuring clear sightlines. • Ensures drivers,pedestrians,and cyclists can see each other without MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS obstructions or barriers in the way. • Physically prevents drivers from parking too close to the crosswalk, improving safety. Arlington County Multimodal Safety Engineering Toolbox Systemic Safety Potential NACTO Urban Street Design Guide San Francisco Toolkit Intersection daylighting is an effective,systemic treatment for improving pedestrian visibility and sightlines at crossings in all corridors. MORE INFORMATION 114 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Location Guidance Roanoke Experience • Install wherever parked vehicles may otherwise Several downtown crosswalks have been daylighted obstruct sightlines. using different techniques. For example, bike and scooter parking at the corner of Campbell and Market • Prioritize locations with high pedestrian or cyclist Street effectively prevents parked motor vehicles from traffic,where improved visibility is critical. obscuring pedestrians on the sidewalk and in the cross- walk.The Mill Mountain Greenway crossing of Franklin Design Guidance Road SE has a similar feature. • Daylighting distance should be tailored to factors such Potential Applications as vehicle speeds, pedestrian and cyclist volume, and other site-specific engineering needs.At posted Daylighting is a systemic measure that can be applied at speeds of 25mph or less,a minimum setback of 20 most crosswalks and signals where there is on street feet is recommended. parking. Priority locations include crossings at locations with a high number of pedestrian crashes,crosswalks • Daylighting can be achieved using paint and flex on streets that are on the pedestrian high-risk network, posts. However,some locations may require more crossings near schools,and locations where the green- permanent infrastructure such as a concrete island or ways cross roadways(with on-street parking). curb extension. • Roadside obstructions such as trees or signal boxes may also be considered for relocation to further improve sight distance. • The space created by daylighting can be used for bike and scooter parking as these do not block sightlines and affect the visibility of pedestrians using the crossing. i i F IF 113 ' 1 _ - I i;; 4 i 1 ' -... ,--iiilit . Illiririt...—Ariminav -.. \ • o Bike and scooter parking used to daylight Mill Mountain Daylighted intersection on Campbell Avenue SE Greenway crossing, Franklin Road SE ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1115 Hardened Centerlines and Turn Wedges 18% - 33% NCY DOT 2024 EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION t to a PRIMARY MODES it 11k.1-13 •_te, • ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Reduce vehicle turning speeds and encourage drivers to yield to pedestrians ESTIMATED COST and cyclists. Description Arterial,Collector,and Local Hardened centerlines are flexible delineator posts or raised speed humps placed between opposing travel lanes at intersections.These features dis- APPLICABLE STREET TYPES courage drivers from cutting the corner(and thus driving across crosswalks diagonally)and encourage slower,safer turns. Turn wedges are raised humps or flexible delineators placed between the sides of perpendicular crosswalks.They are designed to slow turning vehicles and promote yielding to pedestrians. MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS Safety Benefits Slows left-turning vehicles without reducing traffic capacity. Arlington County Multimodal Safety Engineering Toolbox • Guides vehicles to wider turning angle for safer and more predictable turns. Insurance Institute for • Increases visibility of pedestrians and cyclists at intersection to Highway Safety turning drivers. New York City Street Design Manual MORE INFORMATION 116 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Systemic Safety Potential Expected Crash Reduction Hardened centerlines and turn wedges are appropriate New York City has implemented a comprehensive Turn as spot treatments where there is significant issue Calming Program since 2016 that has changed nearly or concern with conflict between drivers and pedestri- 1,000 intersections.They report that pedestrian injuries ans or cyclists. have fallen by 18% and severe injuries have decreased by 33%.These figures are even higher for senior Location Guidance pedestrians (19% and 60% respectively). Median left turn speeds have decreased by more than 50%. • Hardened centerlines can be installed at intersections or mid block crossings. FHWA has not published a crash reduction estimate for turn wedges. • Useful in locations with a history of turn-related crashes or observed issues with drivers failing to Roanoke Experience yield to pedestrians. There are no current examples of hardened centerlines • Turn wedges are best placed at intersection corners. and turn wedges in Roanoke. Design Guidance Potential Application • The turning radius of large vehicles, including Left-turn hardening has the potential for widespread trucks and buses,should be evaluated before application but is not appropriate at all intersections. installing turn wedges. The measures is especially helpful as an element of neighborhood and downtown traffic calming and in • Also effective as a quick-build or interim tool using locations where left turning traffic is a recognized flexible delineators and pavement markings. safety issue,for example on Williamson Road between • Snow removal,street sweeping and other mainte- Compton Street and Angell Avenue NE. nance impacts should be considered during design. .$`"` � a es. - irR6110r., air F 414. x .. __ ✓. h}t Permanent hardened centerlines,Henrico, VA Hardened centerline on Hopkins Road, Richmond VA ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1117 High VisibilityCrosswalks 40% P 0 FHWA • i EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION p /j f PRIMARY MODES �- ' h (..! ` ' ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose To clearly guide pedestrians to designated crossing areas while enhancing motorist awareness of pedestrian activity. High-visibility crosswalks help ensure safer interactions between pedestrians and vehicles. ESTIMATED COST Description Local,Collector,and Arterial High-visibility crosswalks are marked to clearly define pedestrian crossing zones and alert drivers of their obligation to yield.These crosswalks typi- APPLICABLE STREET TYPES catty feature bold,easy-to-see markings—such as longitudinal, ladder,or continental styles—that stand out to approaching vehicles,unlike traditional crosswalks that use parallel or transverse lines,which can be harder to distinguish from a distance. Safety Benefits MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS • Boosts pedestrian visibility and alerts drivers to their expected presence. • Reduces the frequency of crashes involving pedestrians,cyclists, FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures and vehicles. MUTCD(Chapter 3C) • Reinforces pedestrian right-of-way,which may encourage crossing within NACTO Urban Street Design Guide marked areas. PEDSAFE Systemic Safety Potential MORE INFORMATION High-visibility crosswalks can be implemented at all signal-controlled intersections. 118 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Location Guidance • Crosswalks should be located where they offer • convenient access for pedestrians. te f F.. • Markings must extend to include curb ramps,ensur- _siims ing that individuals with mobility aids can access the ramp without leaving the crosswalk area. Design Guidance • Ensure crosswalks are paired with curb ramps for accessibility. = �� • Restrict parking near crosswalks to maintain clear sightlines for both pedestrians and drivers. High Visibility Crosswalk with median Colonial Avenue SW • At signal-controlled intersections, position stop bars before the crosswalk to prevent vehicles from blocking it. ,..4111111111 • For midblock,uncontrolled crossings,install stop Atli- lines and appropriate signage to alert drivers. • Crosswalks should be at least as wide as the connecting sidewalks, if not wider,to accommodate pedestrian traffic safely. Roanoke Experience The City of Roanoke has been installing high visibility crosswalks at signalized intersections for several years. Examples can be seen at several downtown intersec- tions,as well as the intersections of Williamson and High visibility crossing of Mill Moutain Greenway at 10th NE; 24th and Melrose NW,and along Brandon Ave Franklin Road SE SW between Colonial Avenue and Malcom Street. Potential Applications High-visibility crosswalk markings are a systemic safety , - ' �... measure that should become a standard element of any project involving crosswalk markings. Replacing • — conventional striped crosswalks with high visibility crosswalks should be prioritized at intersections with a high number of pedestrian crashes,crosswalks on streets that are on the pedestrian high-risk network, crossings near schools,and locations where the green- ways cross roadways. High visibility crosswalk, Rosslyn, VA ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 11 19 Horizontal Deflection 40% Distefano&Leonardi,2019 EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION , ,, 400' 11 ig;) , _ to PRIMARY MODES EV a ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose E Slow traffic speeds by creating a slight shift in the direction of travel lanes on the street. $ — $$$ Description Horizontal deflection can be created by installing offset curb extensions on ESTIMATED COST alternating sides of the street or can be created by offsetting on-street park- ing on alternating sides of the street. Drivers must slow down to navigate the travel lane shifts created by the offset curbs or parking. Depending on Local design, horizontal deflections may also increase the amount of public space APPLICABLE STREET TYPES along a street for landscaping,stormwater management,or amenities like bike parking or benches. � Safety Benefits • Slows traffic speeds. MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS • May improve driver attention to the roadway as they must navigate shifts in the travel lane. BIKESAFE Systemic Safety Potential NACTO Urban Street Design Guide New York City Street Design Manual Can be used systematically as part of neighborhood traffic calming. PEDSAFE MORE INFORMATION 120 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Key Implementation Considerations , p • Horizontal deflections may reduce the number of lib, ik , , on-street parking spaces;they can also create and '` I -•/ protect on-street parking. -" • Signage and striping around horizontal deflection can - _ ,--- help ensure that drivers are aware of a shift in the .;'-, , '~ i travel lane. �� V • Plantings within horizontal deflections should be low vegetation or trees with high canopies to maintain visibility. • Horizontal deflections may have adverse effects on Parking and bulb outs used to create horizontal deflec- drainage along the roadway. If this is a concern, hor- tion,Jamison Avenue SE izontal deflections may be designed as edge islands with a 1-2-foot gap from the curb. Roanoke Experience a�. Jamison and Bullitt Avenues in Southeast Roanoke have small traffic diverters that shift the travel lanes slightly to the left and right,creating a horizontal deflection -----��l� effect. Parking is allowed on alternating sides of the street to reinforce the effect. Future application is not recommended on arterial streets such as these. Potential Applications . Horizontal deflections are a useful systemic measure Chicanes on a local road in Asheville, Nr for many of Roanoke's wide residential roads and collector streets such as Avenham Avenue SW,Carlton � ��`,' ':' Road SW, and 19th Street NW.They can break up . •.;f fill/ �'',' �"», {.y sightlines on long,straight stretches of road,which j encourage speeding; and they require drivers to pay ` :% r �.t� a' attention to their surroundings. b !; }i ' c `- 3 - - - , _Y Using parking to create horizontal deflections, Cambridge, MA ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1121 %:' '----4111;:2">------- '''' LeadingPedestrian Interval LPI1 3% FHWAEXPECTEDCRASHREDUCTION • )110.,„,..,. ✓ '"„,‘,,,. ,,,,,,, k,,,,... , jo _ . , • L t -N, ii.„ t scPb r • :.-- PRIMARY MODES r ` • 44. ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Provides a few seconds"head start"to pedestrians and cyclists when _ crossing a signalized intersection. Description ESTIMATED COST Leading Pedestrian Intervals are programmed into traffic signals to provide pedestrians with a 3-7 second head start before vehicles receive a green Arterial,Collector,and Local light.This advance timing allows pedestrians to establish their presence in the crosswalk, reducing the likelihood of conflicts with turning vehicles. APPLICABLE STREET TYPES Safety Benefits PEDSAFE • Improves pedestrian visibility, making it easier for drivers to see pedestri- Seattle Vision Zero ans as they enter the crosswalk. • Prioritizes pedestrians in the intersection by giving them a head start;this MORE INFORMATION increases the likelihood of drivers yielding to them. • Reduces potential conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles. Systemic Safety Potential This is a systemic safety treatment applicable at all signalized intersections. 122 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Location Guidance • Intersections with high conflict between heavy turning traffic and pedestrians. • Intersections with significant right or left-turn traffic. • LPIs can also be used as leading bicycle intervals I at intersections with conflicts between cyclists and turning vehicles. � �•.. Design Guidance LEIEI • Signal timing adjustments are required to implement LPIs. • An audible sound or tone should accompany the walk IL • phase of the LPI to inform visually impaired pedestri- ans that it has started. • Curb extensions at high-conflict intersections can increase the effectiveness of LPIs by further improving pedestrian visibility and reducing crossing distance. • At intersections with higher pedestrian volumes, longer head starts(up to 10 seconds)or an exclusive pedestrian phase may be considered. Expected Crash Reduction Additional studies at locations around the United States show up to a 60% reduction in pedestrian-vehicle colli- sions at treated intersections(Fayish &Gross,2010). Leading Pedestrian Interval on Williamson Road SE at Roanoke Experience Church Avenue. All downtown intersections have signals that are timed to create a Leading Pedestrian Interval of 5 seconds. Potential Applications This is a systemic measure that can be applied to all signals. Priority locations include signals on roadways that are on the pedestrian high-risk network and signals in areas of high pedestrian activity,such as neighbor- hood centers,outside the downtown area. ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1123 Mobility Track 53% FHWA EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION J 0 • j4 �Gb d 441,00 • 0- tie PRIMARY MODES i `;; �� .. } 3 - ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Provides a dedicated space for bicycles,scooters,and pedestrians that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. $ — $$ Description Mobility Tracks(which are also known as two-way cycle tracks or separated ESTIMATED COST bike lanes),are pathways designated for bicyclists, pedestrians,and scooter users which are physically separated from motor vehicle traffic within the public right-of-way.These tracks are located alongside existing roadways. Arterial and Collector APPLICABLE STREET TYPES Safety Benefits • Eliminates potential conflicts with motorists except at driveways or and intersections. • Accommodates two-way pedestrian and bicycle flow. MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS - VDOT Bicycle Treatments FHWA Bicycle and Pedestrian Program BIKESAFE MORE INFORMATION ra � 9th Avenue SE Mobility Track 124 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Systemic Safety Potential Roanoke Experience Primarily used as a targeted intervention at Roanoke has a growing network of Mobility Tracks.The specific locations. facility on Shenandoah Avenue NW runs for nearly two miles alongside the railroad tracks from 5th Street to Location Guidance 22nd Street and was opened in 2024.This is an ideal location for this facility type.The city's first Mobility • Most beneficial on wide,multi-lane streets with speed Track was installed on 9th Street SE from Highland limits above 30 mph and/or where there is a high Avenue to River Avenue: a new half-mile segment of volume of motor vehicle traffic. Mobility Track will open on Gainsboro Road NW in 2026.. • The higher the speed and volume of adjacent motor vehicle traffic,the greater the degree of separation Potential Applications is recommended The Bikeway Network Plan calls for the development • Mobility tracks work especially well when there are of protected bikeways on many of the major arterial few side streets,driveways and other breaks in the streets in Roanoke. Many of these will be good candi- continuity of the bikeway. dates for Mobility Tracks, including an extension of the existing Shenandoah Avenue NW facility all the way to Design Guidance Williamson Road. • Mobility Tracks are very similar to separated ,," I II , - 'a bicycle lanes and the same design principles V $"` ? � should be followed. � ^� � i ° • When traffic volume and speed are high,separating 1 s= r �� , bicycle and pedestrian traffic from motor vehicles is b_1 recommended to enhance safety. ^` s • Mobility tracks should be wide enough (at least 10 feet)to allow users to travel side-by-side and safely pass one another. • Thoughtful design at the planning stage ensures ,�, a facility that accommodates a wide range of users comfortably. Mobility Track on Shenandoah Avenue NW using flexposts, Roanoke, VA • Adequate lighting is important to encourage use at , night and improve visibility. • Obstacles or objects near the path should be removed �i- to avoid creating hazards. • "` • Special care should be taken at intersections where — oho , At_ mobility track crosses a roadway to ensure safe crossings for all users. • The transitions from one-way bike lanes or shared travel lanes to two-way operation on the mobility track1 Ant O , requires careful roadway design,markings,and sig- _ - �' nage to alert both motorists and mobility track users. Mobility Track under construction on Gainsboro Road NW ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1125 Neighborway 50% - 88% Miniket,2012 EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION PRIMARY MODES , f �t a� ,a . ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose ESTIMATED COST To prioritize bicycle travel on low-stress roads and provide safe crossings of busy arterial streets. Local roads Description APPLICABLE STREET TYPES Neighborways(also called Bicycle Boulevards or Neighborhood Greenways) are low-stress,shared roadways that are signed and marked for bicycle use because of low motor vehicle volume and speed. Neighborways use a corn- NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide bination of signs,pavement markings,and traffic management measures to Small Town and Rural Design Guide discourage through travel by motor vehicles,creating a safe and convenient route for bicyclists. Neighborways are a key component of a low-stress BIKESAFE Guide micromobility network. MORE INFORMATION The key element that makes Neighborways work is their ability to connect low stress roadways that are not also through routes for motor vehicles(i.e.,they provide unique through access to people on foot and bicycle).They have add safe intersection features to enable people on bikes to safely cross busy streets. Safety Benefits • Increases level of comfort for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. • Improves conditions for pedestrians when implemented with enhanced pedestrian crossings. • Provides neighborhood residents with lower motor vehicle speeds and volumes. 126 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Systemic Safety Potential Roanoke Experience Yes. Neighborways should be implemented throughout Roanoke's existing signed bikeway network is based on the city as part of the Micromobility Network Plan a series of bicycle boulevards that were identified by community members in the 1980's and 1990's.Some Location Guidance signage remains but updates are necessary. • Should not be implemented on roadways with an 85th Potential Application percentile speed above 25 mph. Neighborways are a key component of the Roanoke • Not recommended on roads outside residential areas. Micromobility Network Plan.They complement the network of separated bike lanes and greenways and Design Guidance provide low-stress access into every neighborhood in the city.There is a significant overlap with the safety • Signage and pavement markings are the most measures identified as part of neighborhood traffic important basic element of a Neighborway,indicating calming initiatives,as well as changes that are proposed that a roadway is intended to be a shared,slow street to many of the major roadway corridors—notably with bicyclists prioritized. projects that will increase safe crossing opportunities. • Signage and pavement markings should reinforce traffic calming elements of the roadway. � -- " ,, f Mark , • Supplemental infrastructure,crossing treatments,and ., • t -� t signage is necessary at major intersection crossings. • Wayfinding and guidance can help create a branding opportunity for the city and individual l"S routes/neighborhoods. • Neighborways provide strategic connections between other bicycle facilities and key destinations. • Center lines should not be used on Neighborways Intersection treatment on Vancouver BC unless it is at the approach to an intersection. . 2 • Other tools,such as speed humps,horizontal �. DO NOT ¢ �t ,� -z. -a.� +j . deflection,and curb extensions,should be used in conjunction with a Neighborway to manage the speed rr!:`$ j/'� EN?E of motor vehicle traffic. -; . ;. -.r t • 9o.,s - . • ti. E I .11111111 T,."•. Two-way for bikes,Silver Spring,MD ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1127 No Right Turn on Red N/A EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTIONs„ , "� ' ' ,, 4 ., It T te7b 64 Q , , , , , , PRIMARY MODES s CI, ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Reduces conflicts between turning vehicles and other vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists at signalized intersections. ESTIMATED COST Description Signs that prohibit vehicles from making a permitted right turn after coming All street t to a complete stop during a conflicting walk or bike signal phase(right turn ypes where a traffic signal is present. on red).The MUTCD governs where signs may be appropriately installed. APPLICABLE STREET TYPES s . GAiJSBORO" - ,� , . MUTCD Section 26.60 -�' _� v�' �- R�� `�a '� .� '': 4; PEDSAFE : r•. ico A 4, .. . • MORE INFORMATION '� d , . P..) ,,:� a�rr t W, f No Right Turn on Red at Gainsboro Road and Orange Avenue, NW 128 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Safety Benefits Expected Crash Reduction • Reduces conflicts between vehicles where sight A crash reduction estimate is not available for this distance may be restricted. tool. However,research following the introduction of the law estimated that at the approximately 80% of all • Reduces the number of potential pedestrian/bicyclist signalized intersections where motorists are allowed conflicts and turn-related conflicts at the intersection. to turn right on red all right turning crashes increase • Prioritizes pedestrian and bicyclist safety and conve- by about 23%, pedestrian crashes by about 60%,and nience at intersections. bicyclist crashes by about 100%1. More recent studies (e.g.,Atlanta,20222;Toronto, 20153)confirm the threat Systemic Safety Potential to pedestrians and bicyclists posed by motorists turning right on a red signal. Can be a routine element in downtown and area-wide safety initiatives. Roanoke Experience Location Guidance Right turn on red (after stopping) is prohibited at some signalized intersections with right turn phases(green Prohibiting Right Turn on Red movements is especially right turn arrow),for example Grandin Road and important at: Brandon Avenue NW. • Intersections with high volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists. Potential Applications • Intersections with restricted sight distance. This is a systemic tool to use in downtown Roanoke and • Intersections with a history of turn-related crashes. neighborhood centers where there is a high level of pedestrian activity,a history of serious crashes,and a Key Implementation desire to prioritize walkability.Other individual locations include Focus Area intersections with a history of seri- Considerations ous and fatal crashes involving right turning vehicles. • Must meet MUTCD criteria to be installed. • Intersection impacts such as vehicle operations should be studied. ONLY • N r ',.• , • 4 i✓' +fit k . s 1 Zador, Paul L.Accident Analysis& Prevention (AAP), I (` 1984 httos://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ ref/714 2 https://www.letspropelatl.org/ no-turn-on-red-safety No Right Turn on Red,Rosslyn, VA. 3 https://carso.ca/en/news/rethinking-rtor/ ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1129 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon 55% FHWA �> EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION �o 1 � • 44°.;.** PRIMARY MODES ♦ �, ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons(PHBs)are designed to help pedestrians cross higher-speed roadways at midblock locations and at intersections where there are no signals. $$$$ Description ESTIMATED COST Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons(PHBs) are traffic control devices designed to assist pedestrians in crossing at unsignalized marked pedestrian crossings. PHBs remain dark until activated by a pedestrian using a pushbutton or Arterials and Collectors another detection method.Once activated,the beacons sequence through APPLICABLE STREET TYPES flashing and solid lights to indicate the pedestrian walk phase. PHBs are typically used at locations with high vehicle speeds or volumes,where pedestrian crossings are needed,but a full traffic signal is not warranted. PEDSAFE VDOT Pedestrian Treatments Safety Benefits MORE INFORMATION • Reduces conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. • Increases the likelihood that drivers will yield to pedestrians. Systemic Safety Potential PHBs are considered a systemic safety treatment, useful in a variety of high-risk pedestrian crossing locations. 130 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Location Guidance _. . r. • PHBs are particularly effective where pedestrians t 1� 1 i, have difficulty finding gaps in traffic to cross safely. ■Irk ( - - "•• Consider PHBs for all midblock or intersection ` ""�#. ` is oi1rs •> ": crossings where the speed limit is 35 mph or higher x . ; (VDOT says 40 mph). . •7 j{ • PHBs are also suitable for roads with three or more lanes and an Average Annual Daily Traffic(AADT) of I- •_ over 9,000 vehicles. _'. L. • PHBs stop all lanes of traffic, reducing the multiple 4`1 • ; - ' ,, threat and failure to yield crash types that are an "' issue for pedestrians crossing multi-lane roadways. ., ': } a ;'•-•, • X.44 Design Guidance PHBs should be installed with the following elements to v- ,r maximize safety and effectiveness: _ �- • Pushbuttons for pedestrian activation. "`-‘<,, _ � • A marked crosswalk for clear pedestrian guidance. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon crossing Buford Highway in • Countdown pedestrian signal heads to indicate time Brookhaven,GA. remaining for crossing. • Overhead signage displaying "CROSSWALK STOP ON � ' RED"to ensure drivers understand when to stop. `--�\`\ • Overhead beacons with three sections,facing both directions of traffic. - • Stop bars placed at an appropriate distance from the crosswalk to prevent vehicles from blocking the crossing. il. Potential Applications :_ . �:�.;1 Midblock crossings of major roadways on the high-risk y - -- �� network. Priority locations may include crossings that 1'' provide safer access to schools, parks,and greenway • '�' ,! crossings. Examples of specific locations include Orange Avenue and 11th Street NW(where a full signal would Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon at a trail crossing, Coddington not be installed within one block of the existing signal Highway, Newport RI on 10th Street, but there is demand for a safe crossing); Grandin Road SW at either Laburnum Avenue or Avenel Avenue where an existing uncontrolled crossing is insufficient for school traffic; Brambleton Avenue at Montgomery Avenue SW(would provide a more direct, safer crossing for the Murray Run Greenway); and Dale Avenue at 19th Street(a RRFB at this location is insuffi- cient for school traffic and bus stop access; a full signal may be warranted). ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1131 Protected Mobility Lane 53% . , ,_•,.. . FHWA „.. , 1.48 itt4 Or , , vi.., ,'1 7 5 +ice EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION 1 �� #010 Or 0 IN , . ,,,,,, '44.,.1,, . loll , .,',. PRIMARY MODES Ire �X,_.: as ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Enhance bicyclist comfort and safety by creating physical separation between the mobility lane and motor vehicle traffic. $$$$ Description ESTIMATED COST A protected mobility lane is a dedicated lane for micromobility users sepa- rated from motor vehicle travel lanes by physical barriers such as bollards, curbs,or parked cars.These lanes can be either raised or at street level, Arterial,Collector,and Local Roads offering clear separation between people and motor vehicles. APPLICABLE STREET TYPES Safety Benefits • Provides greater physical separation than other types of mobility lanes ++/ * NZ, between motor vehicles and cyclists, reducing the risk of collisions. V+ ♦ • Allows users to pass each other safely without needing to encroach into motor vehicle lanes. MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS • Encourages users to operate outside the "door zone" by adding a buffer between the mobility lane and parked cars, reducing the risk VDOT Bicycle Treatments of"dooring" crashes. NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide FHWABicvcleand Systemic Safety Potential Pedestrian Program This is a corridor spot improvement benefiting all users by enhancing BIKESAFE roadway conditions and safety. MORE INFORMATION 132 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Location Guidance i. • Protected mobility lanes are typically designed as -. one-way facilities with users traveling in the same - --- direction as adjacent traffic on each side of the road. a' - _ There are conditions where a two-way protected i - "` mobility lane,sidepath,or Mobility Track is an appro -"" « priate facility choice. r Design Guidance • At intersections and driveways,ensure proper signage Protected Mobility Lane on Williamson Road,SE and markings are in place to raise awareness of the (Mill Mountain Greenway) protected mobility lane in conflict areas. ,, ' • Consider ongoing maintenance needs when designing a protected mobility lane, including ensuring there is enough space for street sweeping and snow removal. ,i 0 Ii • If the buffer area is wider than 3 feet,it should be A'A s '.. ' : marked with interior diagonal crosshatching to fur- '- r e" ther signal its function and discourage encroachment. �1 , Roanoke Experience , - ,7 . , There is a short section of the Mill Mountain Greenway on Williamson Road (between Elm Ave and the Walnut '\ Street Bridge)that is a two-way mobility lane with a l concrete barrier separating users from motor vehicle r traffic. Mobility Tracks also have many of the same Curb and parking protected bike lane, Cambridge MA characteristics as protected bike lanes. ' . 1' �., Potential Applications Many roads on the proposed micromobility network plan that already have striped mobility lanes are good can didates for fully protected mobility lanes (e.g. Brandon _ Avenue,Peters Creek Road, Franklin Avenue). -�G to- Lice_._ Y,l ! - Protected Bike Lane, Denver CO ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1133 Protected Intersection 80% Preston&Pulugurtha EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION • • l /is cPb PRIMARY MODES o J' .3 - a ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose $$$$ To provide physical separation between bicyclists, pedestrians,and motor vehicles at intersections, improving safety and reducing conflict. ESTIMATED COST Description A protected intersection is designed to keep the mobility lane offset from Arterial and Collector the parallel motor vehicle lanes,allowing users to avoid merging into mixed traffic.This offset creates space for the mobility lane to extend around APPLICABLE STREET TYPES the intersection,giving users the right of way over turning vehicles.This extension is typically achieved using curb extensions,which not only protect users but also narrow the roadway,enhancing the visibility of both cyclists NACTO and pedestrians to turning vehicles. Protected intersections are often paired VDOT Bicycle Treatments with signal phasing that gives cyclists and pedestrians a head start when FHWA Improving Intersections for the light turns green,further improving safety. Pedestrians and Bicyclists MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Safety Benefits Planning&Design Guide • Prevents conflicts between motor vehicles and mobility lane users. MORE INFORMATION • Encourages drivers to yield to mobility lane users and pedestrians. • Reduces the crossing distance for both mobility lane users and pedestrians. • Increases the visibility of mobility lane users and pedestrians to turning vehicles, reducing the risk of accidents. 134 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Systemic Safety Potential Site specific application 1• - III Location Guidance • Typically implemented at intersections that already '�- feature a buffered or separated mobility lane,enhanc- j= �; ing the continuity of the micromobility network. Mlfre "`" Design Guidance : ---- ` • The mobility lane should be set back at least 10 feet from the intersection,with a preferred setback of 14 to 20 feet for added safety. • The curb radii should be kept small to encourage driv- ers to turn at slower speeds(no faster than 10 mph). Protected Intersection,South Capitol Street, • Install an accessible pedestrian refuge island Washington DC between the mobility lane and the motor vehicle lanes to protect pedestrians. • Use green pavement markings at the corners of the .it .' intersection to discourage pedestrians from standing '`- ,, . in the mobility lane. • Consider implementing a "Turning Vehicles Yield to Bikes and Pedestrians" sign at locations where right .41 X4,2 Y-: turns occur simultaneously with mobility lane users I, `/ / ,"r } and pedestrian movements. Potential Applications Widespread application at major intersections on the Micromobility Network Plan Interim Protected Intersection in Silver Spring, MD. ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1135 Raised Crossing 45% FHWA ,.. EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION PRIMARY MODES < i a ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Raised crossings are crosswalks that are raised to the level of the sidewalk to slow traffic down,increase yielding behavior,and make pedestrians more visible. $$ Description ESTIMATED COST A raised crossing consists of a vertical traffic control feature,typically 3-4 inches high at the center,extending across the full width of the street. Collector and Local Motorists are required to slow down to safely navigate the raised area, promoting pedestrian-friendly speeds.Speed humps can be combined with APPLICABLE STREET TYPES high-visibility crosswalks to create raised crossings,improving both pedes- trian visibility and motorist awareness. Safety Benefits • Reduces vehicle speeds. MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS • Can reduce the frequency and severity of crashes involving vehicles. • Increased pedestrian visibility to motorists. FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer • Encourages motorists to yield to pedestrians. PEDSAFE • Potential to create level crossings for pedestrians with disabilities. VDOT Pedestrian Treatments Systemic Safety Potential MORE INFORMATION Raised crossings are typically used as spot treatments in specific locations requiring enhanced safety measures. 136 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Location Guidance � • Should not be used on sharp curves or areas with a •- 'a' a a sharp turns. ,- l • Commonly used for mid-block crossings • Also appropriate at intersections or for elevating ' l entire intersections(raised intersection). Design Guidance = ;. • Vehicle noise may increase,especially on routes with heavy truck traffic. Raised Crossing on Salem Avenue SW • Drainage must be adequately addressed in the design. • Coordination with emergency vehicle and transit oper ators is essential to minimize operational impacts. _ � •' • Warning signs(MUTCD W17-1)should be installed to • ��'' alert drivers. • Raised crossings should be marked with high-vis- ibility crosswalks and can be painted or paved for enhanced visibility and aesthetic appeal. Roanoke Experience A Raised Crosswalk was recently installed on Salem Avenue SE between Jefferson Street and 1st Street. Raised Crossing at Outlet Shopping Mall, Bluffton SC Potential Application Raised crosswalks are a useful tool to address speeding and crossing safety issues in specific locations on local =, ; roads and side street entrances.They are an important element of the toolkit for neighborhood traffic calming �'`•`# _ ; • •.; and for site-specific locations around schools and areas of high pedestrian activity.They can also be used exten- 4 ` •,ni , sively in downtown to reinforce the culture of safety and aneat pedestrian priority. !lir Raised crossings may also be a feature of greenway crossings of city streets,for example,where the Mill • Mountain Greenway crosses Church Avenue or Franklin Road in downtown Roanoke. Raised crossing on Grove Road,Richmond VA ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1137 Raised Intersection N/A EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION i 6. 9;. 43.-1--‘ 44b � . _ .4,.. _ . - i -. ,/ 0, f " PRIMARY MODES i o ESTIMATED TIMELINE $$$ Purpose Reduce vehicle speeds,increase yielding behavior by drivers,and establish pedestrian priority at key locations. ESTIMATED COST Description Collector and Local A Raised Intersection is one of several similar vertical traffic calming measures that raise the height of the pavement to the same level as the APPLICABLE STREET TYPES sidewalk.Vehicles approaching the intersection must slow down to go up a small incline—similar to a speed hump.The entire intersection is raised to the level of the sidewalk and features high visibility crosswalks and some- ' yr decorative designs in the middle of the intersection.Drivers go down a ;'� *00 small incline after they have passed through the intersection. MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS Safety Benefits • Reduce motor vehicle speeds as they approach an intersection FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer and crosswalk NACTO Urban Street Design Guide • Increase the likelihood that a driver will yield or stop for a pedestrian in Cambridge.MA the crosswalk • Make pedestrians in the intersection more visible MORE INFORMATION • Reduce barriers for people using wheelchairs and other assistive devices • Establish that pedestrians have priority 138 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Systemic Safety Application • Site specific application at intersections on the High ,A Injury and High Risk Networks. Key Implementation Considerations • Addressing drainage issues can add to the cost and timeline for implementation ----. • Larger vehicles (e.g.,emergency vehicle,busses) can traverse these;the potential impact on response - times should be addressed. Raised intersection at Norfolk Ave SE and Jefferson St SE, Roanoke VA Expected Crash Reduction There is limited data on the effect of raised intersections as distinct from raised crosswalks and other vertical speed control elements. NACTO notes that they rein- sa d a 0 "'A 0 o A A 4 ; force slow speeds and encourage motorists to yield to ,.. pedestrians at the crosswalk. as Roanoke Experience There is a partial raised intersection at Campbell y.. Avenue SE and Market Street SE opposite the City Market building.There is also a raised intersection at South Jefferson Street and Norfolk Avenue SW,at one end of the shared street section of Norfolk Avenue by the Amtrak Station. Raised Intersection at Campbell Avenue and City Market, Roanoke Potential Applications Raised intersections are an effective gateway treatment, drawing attention to arrival in a particular place or area. Several intersections along 2nd Street SW,Franklin Road SE and SW,and Williamson Road SE would be candidate locations to highlight arrival in downtown Roanoke. ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1139 Remove Slip Lanes N/A fi EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION �� • • • (Pb PRIMARY MODES •� .� w i O 3 ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Eliminate high speed conflicts between motor vehicles and pedestrians Description Slip lanes allow for motor vehicles to make fast, unimpeded right turn ESTIMATED COST movements in locations where there may be conflicts with pedestrians.Slip lanes can be closed with bollards or with more permanent construction to Collectors and Arterial Streets fill in the lane and extend the sidewalk or create a public space or plaza. APPLICABLE STREET TYPES Safety Benefits • Eliminate conflicts between fast,right-turning motor vehicles and pedestrians _: �i • Create more predictable movements at the intersection • Make pedestrians more visible MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS Systemic Safety Application PEDSAFE Should be routinely applied to all locations with Strong Towns slip lanes. MORE INFORMATION 140 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Key Implementation 4 Considerations • Larger vehicles may need to be accommodated I r •1: with a curb apron or slightly wider turn radius at `' • _ the intersection • If a dedicated right turn lane is still warranted,the a 1.. � slip lane can be redesigned to slow vehicle speeds, protect pedestrians,and enable drivers to scan to the left more easily Expected Crash Reduction 7, _- There is no Crash Modification Factor for removing _ slip lanes per se. However,the increased danger to pedestrians at right turn slip lanes or channelized right turns is well documented'',as is the increase Slip lane closed with flexposts,Richmond, VA in risk associated with increasing the corner turn- ing radius for vehicles'. Removing or modifying slip lanes will reduce pedestrian exposure and decrease vehicle speeds at the intersection. 1111111111 Close sRpunos with Delineators Potential Applications There are numerous Focus Area intersections with right-turn slip lanes that could be closed.These include Williamson and Hershberger NE,Williamson and Orange NE,Orange and 10th and 24th Streets NW, Dale Avenue and 13th Street SE,and Brandon Avenue and Edgewood Street SW. Sketch showing closed slip lanes at Cove Road and Hershberger Road, NW 4 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ abs/pii/S0001457519308802 5 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/ safety/21105/21105.odf ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1 141 RoadwayReconfiguration 47% FHWA EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION yc ik k (;) PRIMARY MODES • • ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Roadway reconfigurations optimize the use of available roadway space to improve safety,enhance opportunities for walking a biking,while maintain- $$$ — $$$$ ing or improving overall traffic flow. ESTIMATED COST Description Roadway reconfigurations involve reallocating space on a wide roadway that has excess capacity for motor vehicles.These roads,which typically Arterial,Collector,and Local have four or more lanes,experience higher speeds and speed differentials and vehicles weaving between lanes. Left turn movements are particularly APPLICABLE STREET TYPES challenging and dangerous;there are usually no facilities for people on bikes,few safe crossings for people on foot,and limited/missing sidewalks. The roadway reconfiguration removes one or more travel lanes and real- +++ locates the space to pedestrians and cyclists,often adding features like bike lanes,widened sidewalks,transit lanes,pedestrian refuge islands, and curb extensions. Roadway reconfigurations are particularly effective MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS on undivided,four-lane roads,which are reduced to one through lane in each direction with a center turn lane for left turns. If traffic volume is low PEDSAFE enough,the center turn lane may be omitted. FHWA STEP Program Safety Benefits VDOT Guidance Arlington County Guidance • Reduces vehicle speeds and speed differentials between vehicles. MORE INFORMATION • Shortens crossing distances for pedestrians. • Reduces rear-end,left-turn,and right-angle crashes. • Enhances comfort for pedestrians and cyclists. 142 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Systemic Safety Potential Additional Information Roadway reconfigurations can be implemented system- • Roadway reconfigurations often occur in ically as part of a broader strategy for traffic calming, conjunction with other safety measures helping create safer corridors across a network. such as high visibility crosswalks, medians, Location Guidance and separated or marked bike lanes • A conversion to a three-lane road can be compatible • Roadway reconfigurations are most effective on roads with a single-lane roundabout. with daily motor vehicle volumes between 8,000 and 25,000 motor vehicles. Roanoke Experience The City of Roanoke has successfully implemented road- Design Guidance way reconfigurations on area roads such as Brandon • Several factors must be taken into account when Avenue,Williamson Road,and Gainsboro Road..Traffic implementing roadway reconfiguration, including volumes remain similar,crashes and vehicle speeds are motor vehicle speeds,existing traffic volumes,peak significantly reduced,and turning movements are easier hour and peak direction flow,turning movements, and safer. side street volumes,and the volume of pedestrians, Potential Application cyclists,and transit vehicles. • A three-lane configuration typically includes one lane Several priority corridors in the Vision Zero Action in each direction, plus a two-way center left turn lane. Plan are candidates for a roadway reconfiguration. • Lane reductions can be further enhanced with the Purpose addition of painted,textured,or raised center islands to improve safety and aesthetics. Roundabouts reduce the number of potential conflict points at intersections and smooth out traffic flows by _v% . ,,'"• _- _- — eliminating the need for traffic signals. - ....+..-. `ter-,r'r-ow' •.` - _ . •r�i•► C ./C. ' - , _ , . , ., um i ,„,,a f V .b 41 rior„.. 44'1. _., lip* - Pilot Roadway Reconfiguration on Williamson Road. Roadway Reconfiguration on 9th Avenue SE ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1143 Roundabout 82 % FHWA x ,x EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION ~E 'list��`' 'cn CPt9 fAI . N. PRIMARY MODES '�, / '' ". �' �.' r as ESTIMATED TIMELINE Description Roundabouts are circular intersections with a raised central island,designed to replace traditional intersections.Vehicles entering the roundabout must $$$ — $$$$ yield to traffic already circulating within it,and there are no left-turn move- ments.This design keeps traffic moving continuously,reducing the likelihood of conflicts and encouraging vehicles to yield to pedestrians and cyclists. ESTIMATED COST Roundabouts are distinct from(and usually slightly larger than)traffic circles that are geared towards neighborhood traffic calming rather than Minor Arterial,Collector and Local intersection control. APPLICABLE STREET TYPES Safety Benefits • Reduces vehicle speeds BIKESAFE • Promotes motorist yielding to pedestrians and bicyclists PEDSAFE Arlington County Guidance • Eliminates angle collisions,which are typically more severe than other types of crashes VDOT Bicycle Treatments MORE INFORMATION Systemic Safety Potential Roundabouts serve as an effective,systemic treatment for improving traffic flow and safety along corridors. 144 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Location Guidance Potential Application • Roundabouts are not appropriate at intersections of Roundabouts have widespread applicability on minor two multilane roads. arterial and collector roadways that are on the high-risk network,especially because of the space/right-of-way • Roundabouts are not appropriate at intersections near that is available at intersections that are larger and active,at-grade railroad crossings. wider than they really need to be.The City should be • Roundabouts should not be placed on wary of making roundabouts larger than they really high-speed roadways. need to be and should avoid the use of right-turn slip lanes at roundabouts as they increase speeds and Design Guidance danger for pedestrians and cyclists. • Key factors to consider when designing a roundabout include pedestrian and bicycle traffic volumes,theOti — y_— number of travel lanes,the impacts on pedestrian - _ ;Air" NAM routes,and available right-of-way. �,,,,,► • For locations with higher pedestrian volumes,con- sider adding signal controls and wider crosswalks to — r improve safety. • Roundabouts should be designed to ensure entry speeds of 15-18 mph on each approach. • On low-speed, low-traffic streets,such as in residen- Roundabout in Henrico County neighborhood, tial neighborhoods,consider using mini roundabouts Henrico, VA as a traffic calming measure. Roanoke Experience There are several roundabouts in Roanoke.There is a sequence of three roundabouts of slightly different sizes on Colonial Avenue SW(at Winding Way Road,McNeil _ * 111X ,W ? • Drive,and Overland Road).Two of the three include designs that accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians well.There is a roundabout at the intersection of Wise ` Avenue SE and 13th Street that was completed as part of a complete streets project that added sidewalks, bike lanes,and landscaping to several blocks of 13th Street Roundabout at Wise Avenue and 13th Street SE SE from Norfolk Avenue to Tazewell Street SE. ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1145 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB 47% - ~ FHWA + ia \ r, EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION , • • PRIMARY MODES *,067: • ` It i a Purpose ESTIMATED TIMELINE RRFB's use flashing lights and warning signs to highlight the presence of someone using a marked pedestrian or greenway crossing. $ _ $$ Description RRFBs are an effective pedestrian safety tool designed to improve safety ESTIMATED COST at uncontrolled, marked crossings.When paired with appropriate warning signage, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) provide high-visi- bility alerts to drivers,signaling when pedestrians are crossing a marked Arterial,Collector,and Local Roads crosswalk. RRFBs consist of two rectangular-shaped yellow lights with an LED source APPLICABLE STREET TYPES that flash rapidly when activated.These beacons are typically installed at locations with high pedestrian safety concerns,such as school zones,trail PEDSAFE crossings,or other areas with significant foot traffic. VDOT Pedestrian Treatments Safety Benefits FHWA STEP Program • Increases rate of motorist yielding. MORE INFORMATION Systemic Safety Potential RRFBs are considered a spot treatment, meaning they are typically used at specific, high-risk locations rather than as a widespread measure. 146 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Location Guidance • If a pedestrian refuge or other kind of median is „> I present,an RRFB should be installed in the median. "' 3 Design Guidance • RRFBs must be used in conjunction with a pedestrian ejk , `'`*.- `'"r :- crossing sign. ate, ` _ • Additional advance warning signs or pavement 1 4'„�{ markings can be added to enhance visibility. • Solar-powered RRFBs may eliminate the need for an external power source. / 1. • RRFBs should be reserved for locations with signifi- cant pedestrian safety concerns;overuse may reduce Crossing of Williamson Road at Bullitt Avenue SE that has their effectiveness. a RRFB. Roanoke Experience r J -- ----4- ----T ..._. The City of Roanoke has installed several RRFBs. Ones, - of the most recent installations was on Salem Turnpike - _ at the entrance to the Roanoke EnVision Center.Other locations include Dale Avenue at 19th Street SE, 11th �` `' Street NW at Orange Avenue,and Williamson Road SE at Bullitt Avenue SE. - ...- _•, Potential Applications -41ft RRFB's are a valuable tool for site-specific safety improvements to create safer crossing opportunities, '* especially around schools, recreation centers,greenway crossings,and locations with a history of mid-block crashes.RRFB's are not a substitute for measures such ' as Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons and pedestrians signals that control traffic (as opposed to providing a warning). RRFB on Salem Turnpike, NW ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1147 Safety Cameras • 47% - 54% FHWA t EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTIONf;;) ` �4.•. .mow. s . PRIMARY MODES ,. • • 4,0 CIO Purpose ESTIMATED TIMELINE Increase road safety and reduce serious injuries and fatalities caused by speeding. $$$$ Description Speed cameras are a type of automated enforcement technology that detect ESTIMATED COST and record images of vehicles traveling faster than the posted speed limit. The footage is then reviewed by Roanoke Police Department(RPD)to issue a citation for the violation.The goal of speed cameras is to provide a method of All street types; however,speed camera may only be placed in automated enforcement that deters speeding and improves safety on roads. designated school zones or highway Safety Benefits work zones by Virgina State Law. APPLICABLE STREET TYPES • Reduce speeding. • Reduce speeding-related crashes. Arlington County Guidance • Replace speed enforcement by physical policing. FHWA Guidance • Operates 24/7. NHTSA Guidance MORE INFORMATION Location Guidance • Crash,speed,and citation data can be factors in assessing and identifying locations for automated enforcement. Key Implementation Considerations • Install signage warning drivers in advance of the first speed camera on a corridor. 148 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT ft Roanoke Experience SCHOOL ZONE, ., ` , s The City has requested approval from the State to imple- `I/ ti4'2,0 , " ` ,0 ment a speed camera enforcement program around Q .4,,, +Ilk* 4 -_t schools and is exploring options for implementation. SPEED PHOTO "41`. Potentialpp Applications • ENFOJC_ED , ,f; r . * t A school-based safety camera program is a great way to ,k :,,` °f ,, � • ` ., `s II introduce this measure into the mix of solutions that are A available.There is a close correlation between schools and the High Injury and High Risk networks in Roanoke. f ig . " - lite School Zone safety camera signage, Richmond VA . • 1 ► ;. ,- _ Iii a ,Ns c F 0 a h� ' Speed Camera on Midlothian Turnpike, Richmond, VA School Zone safety camera signage,Richmond VA ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1149 Shared Street N/A r EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION � s 5, k . • B3 PRIMARY MODES "• ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Shared streets are designed to be used by everyone but at a walking pace $$$$ with priority given to the comfort of pedestrians and cyclists.Shared streets encourage motorists to view themselves as guests in the space, with pedestrians and cyclists as the primary user. ESTIMATED COST Description Local A key feature of a shared streets is the absence of a vertical curb,creating a continuous shared space for both vehicles and non-motorized users.This APPLICABLE STREET TYPES design allows pedestrians and cyclists to move freely throughout the entire street and cross at any point,with motorists required to yield the right-of-way. Additional design elements,such as narrow entry points,reduced street width, io; • and textured or marked pavement,help to maintain low vehicle speeds. _I Safety Benefits MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS • Reduced vehicle speeds,which lower the severity of collisions. FHWA Guidance • The curbless design encourages all users to behave more cautiously. NACTO Urban Street Design Guide • Pedestrian-and cyclist-focused design discourages unnecessary motor PEDSAFE vehicle traffic. MORE INFORMATION Systemic Safety Potential Shared streets are typically used as a spot treatment,focusing on specific areas where a safer, more pedestrian-friendly environment is needed. 150 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Location Guidance Roanoke Experience • Ideal for streets where promoting pedestrian activity Roanoke has two prominent shared streets in the and enhancing livability are primary goals. downtown area: Bullitt Avenue SE between Jefferson Street and Williamson Road (in Elmwood Park)and • Best suited for low-traffic streets with minimal motor Norfolk Avenue SW(in front of the Amtrak Station). vehicle volumes. There is also a short section of Market Street SE(Market Square Plaza)that has shared street characteristics for Design Guidance a short distance. • Shared streets are generally not appropriate for Potential Application thoroughfares or high-traffic routes. There are opportunities for shared streets to be a part • Streets with traffic volumes exceeding 100 vehicles of further traffic calming in the downtown area(notably per hour are generally unsuitable,unless vehicle the streets surrounding the City Market building)that volumes are reduced through other traffic calming would contribute to the culture of safety when driving in measures as part of the street conversion. downtown Roanoke. • Shared street signage should be prominently dis- played at the entrances to indicate that the space is shared by all users. •*-,. '\ • Vehicle speeds must be kept very low to ensure the *;;* "` 1. safety of pedestrians and cyclists. • The design must comply with ADA accessibility standards. • Consideration must be given to emergency vehicle access and loading activities to ensure these needs are met. Y .. Expected Crash Reduction American data is limited, but Dutch streets converted to shared streets have seen a 40% reduction in crashes. (FHWA, 2016). Bullitt Avenue in Elmwood Park, downtown Roanoke 4 - _- — -4. .. • y. .ia., . _...„. , ,,.......... ,,„,,,. , _ „. ., ..• ..... - — E ,.._ / ,, _ ,. , . . . , - .._- - _ ._.. _ Norfolk Avenue SE at the Roanoke Amtrak Station is a Bullitt Avenue is a shared street in Elmwood Park, down- shared street town Roanoke, VA ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1151 Sidewalk 65% - 89% FHWA EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION(Pb641 41. c • fi PRIMARY MODES3 - As, gad ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Sidewalks provide designated areas for pedestrians to travel along streets, 0 0111) separated from vehicle traffic. Description ESTIMATED COST Sidewalks are most beneficial when they are wide enough to accommodate two people walking or rolling side by side.They should be well-maintained, All street types with minimal bumps or cracks(none greater than 1/4 inch in height,per ADA standards), kept free of debris and overgrown plants, and include curbs. APPLICABLE STREET TYPES In areas of high pedestrian activity,sidewalks should be wide enough to accommodate benches,street furniture,outdoor dining,window shopping, and through foot traffic. Safety Benefits MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS • Improves safety and comfort of people walking and rolling by separating pedestrians from faster-moving vehicles and cyclists. • Sidewalks can also serve as space for utilities,signage,and public NACTO Urban Street Design Guide amenities such as bus shelters, bicycle parking,seating, public art,trash PEDSAFE and recycling bins,and landscaping elements.• US Access Board PROWAG • Well-designed sidewalks encourage walking by helping make walking a Seattle Program Guidance convenient and attractive option for traveling between destinations. Seattle Design Guidance MORE INFORMATION 152 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Systemic Safety Potential Roanoke Experience This is a proven,effective,systemic treatment for Developers are required to provide sidewalks as part improving pedestrian comfort and safety system-wide. of all projects.The City Engineering Division has a sidewalk construction program to fill missing sections Location Guidance of sidewalk. • Sidewalks should ideally be installed on both sides of Potential Applications the street. In areas with limited space,such as local streets,a sidewalk may be placed on one side where There are many locations on the high-risk network it offers the best connectivity. where the construction of and replacement of sidewalks and will be a significant improvement in the safety and Design Guidance dignity of people walking and rolling. Priority locations include streets around schools, recreation areas,and • Sidewalks must be designed to accommodate residential areas with a high percentage of people living people with disabilities and should be part of an in poverty or without access to a motor vehicle. ADA-compliant pathway.All new and reconstructed t' ., sidewalks and curb ramps should meet ADA and f. PROWAG standards. • Sidewalks should have a minimum width of 5 feet, — with 6 feet being preferred to allow for safe passage of ,,F �.— people using wheelchairs.The required width may vary `: -` depending on context and expected pedestrian volume. • Most sidewalks should include curbs to elevate pedestrians from the roadway for safety. • Where possible, include a buffer zone between 4,the sidewalk and street to separate pedestrians from vehicles.This zone can accommodate utilities,traffic control devices,trees,and other street furniture. In some constrained New sidewalk as part of 13th SE Street Reconstruction areas,a buffer zone may not be feasible. e I __m- ^- tt • , - �r __ .. - . -_ `' , si III • _ 't► i. i s t� -r • , _ , . .,.. a Adding sidewalks to suburban Buford Highway in New sidewalk as part of Gainsboro Road NW Brookhaven, GA resurfacing project ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1153 Speed Humps & Speed Cushions NIA • EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION • PRIMARY MODES .1X ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Speed humps and cushions are vertical traffic calming measures that are used to reduce the speed of motor vehicles on local streets. Description ESTIMATED COST Speed humps are paved,gradual rises in the surface of the roadway that require motor vehicle drivers to drive slowly over them, ideally at no more Collector and Local than 15-20 mph.They are usually constructed with asphalt and rise about 3-4 inches above the roadway and are 12 feet in width.Speed humps extend APPLICABLE STREET TYPES across the entire width of the roadway and are often tapered at each end to allow for drainage.This tapered area is also a place where bicyclists will FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer frequently ride. ITE Traffic Calming Measures Speed cushions are similar, but they are constructed with small gaps PEDSAFE between them that allow vehicles with a wide wheelbase—such as emer- gency service vehicles, buses,and trash trucks—to pass with less impact. NACTO Uban Street Design Guide The design speed for a speed cushion is slightly higher(20-25mph)than for MORE INFORMATION a road with speed humps. Safety Benefits • Reduces vehicle speeds. • Can reduce the frequency and severity of crashes involving vehicles. • Encourages motorists to yield to pedestrians. 154 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Systemic Safety Potential Roanoke Experience Speed humps and cushions are typically used as part Speed humps and speed cushions are not currently in of neighborhood traffic calming initiatives and as spot use on City streets. treatments in specific locations requiring enhanced Application measures. Potential Application Location Guidance Speed humps and cushions are useful tools to address speeding in specific locations.They are also an import- • Should not be used on sharp curves or areas with ant element of the toolkit for neighborhood traffic sharp turns. calming and for site-specific locations around schools and areas of high pedestrian activity. • Attention to spacing,aesthetics,drainage,and final construction can help to avoid problems with noise .,A rs (caused by constant acceleration and deceleration), µ ti water ponding,vehicle damage,and other issues. j oget+" • Usually placed in midblock locations. Similar features - 1.— such as raised crosswalks and raised intersections `�� - may be more appropriate devices at intersections. Design GuidanceA 411,,Slii,.L • Vehicle noise may increase,especially on routes with heavy truck traffic. Speed cushions on local street in Henrico County, VA • Drainage must be adequately addressed in the design. • Coordination with emergency vehicle and transit opera` >. ators is essential to minimize operational impacts. { • Warning signs(MUTCD W17-1)should be installed to ,� alert drivers. • Appropriate on roads with a posted speed of 30mph 4.-... . or less. - s 1 . •-;- '_ Expected Crash Reduction = " FHWA reports that speed humps can be effective in reducing speeds by nearly 10mph6 The National Speed hump on local road in Silver Spring,MD Institutes of Health reports that speed humps were associated with a 53%-60% reduction in the odds of • ;> death or injury among children struck by an automobile k- •4 •.,.. — in their neighborhood'. . ati± ,. -- -. 4 ,, +- ■ �+, r� a . f`, ".--- - - - �J f<. a -- • 6 httos://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed-manage ment/speed-management-countermeasures- Speed humps on the VCU Campus in Richmond, VA more-lust-speed-humps#1 7 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/ PMC1448312/ ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 11 55 Speed Limit Reduction 26% ' V FHWA * • EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION • tAir,;) PRIMARY MODES ♦ • i • Purpose ESTIMATED TIMELINE Lower vehicle speeds will reduce the likelihood and severity of crashes. Description $ $$$ High vehicle speeds increase the chances of crashes happening in the first place and the likelihood that death or serious injury will result from ESTIMATED COST a collision. By lowering speed limits,ideally in combination with other measures in the toolbox,vehicle speeds can be reduced and the likelihood of serious injury or fatal crashes reduced. Even minor reductions in speed can All street types have significant safety benefits. Establishing a culture of safer speeds is a proactive way to improve road safety for all users. 4r°°° APPLICABLE STREET TYPES Safety Benefits NACTO Safe Speeds Guidance • Increase predictability of the travel environment for all road users. Arlington County Guidance • Reduce the likelihood of crashes by increasing available reaction time. FHWA USLIMITS2 • Reduces fatalities and serious injuries when crashes do occur. MORE INFORMATION • Creates street environments supporting comfortable access and safety for all user regardless of travel mode. Systemic Safety Potential This is a proven,effective,systemic treatment for improving safety for all users systemwide. Location Guidance • Lower speeds are particularly effective at reducing crash and injury risk in areas where high activity is expected. 156 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Design Guidance Potential Application • The Virginia Department of Transportation has Reducing the default speed limit on local roads in authority to determine speed limits on state-main- Roanoke by 5 mph would reduce fatal and serious injury tained roads. crashes in the city,particularly if it was done in conjunc- tion with a comprehensive speed management program. • Statutory speed limits are determined by Virginia's General Assembly.These speed limits apply to In the short term,an effective speed management highways and roadways lacking a posted speed limit. program—including lowering speed limits on particular sections of roadway where engineering measures will Expected Crash Reduction result in lower speeds—can help shift attitudes and make significant spot improvements to the overall Further evidence that cities can lower their default crash narrative. speed limits and see a decline in fatal and serious injury , w - , crashes comes from Seattle, Boston,and Edmonton. In a '- Wales(United Kingdom),the implementation of a 20mph default speed limit on local roads in September 2023 s led to a 32% reduction in reported casualties in the first ■■■e.••• quarter following its introduction. ■•E :•.� A 10% reduction in the average operating speed of a U ' vehicle can result in 19% fewer injury crashes,27% YOUR SPEED ".- fewer severe crashes,and 34%fewer fatal crashes. A 1 SPEED'I' , (Nilsson,2004). — LIMIT 3 0 roll ---y Roanoke Experience G W In June 2019,the Roanoke City School Board passed 0 7. d- a resolution and Roanoke City Council adopted an ordinance to decrease the speed limit from 25 MPH to 15 MPH in most neighborhood school zones in the City. Some Park Areas have 15 MPH speed limits. Portable speed monitoring in Richmond, VA 4 +. l �� , 7 )1 l A i Ill . .4' _ :` 4.) SPEED PARK AREA ,— ,�., LIMIT sn �, _ , � 20 15 �.. . MPH .1:7alai t -111 _, - - , ,_ ' , , . . ,...... ....... ., ,. , , , . ,. _• 1, - ••• A ,' s Il ' i jig Wiley Drive SW adjacent to the Roanoke River Greenway. Speed limit does not match road design, Henrico, VA ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1157 Traffic Circle N/A 1 1/4 ,,, EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION • • , µ,7i •ma's► r> 1 4:1?-i'4----z-'* cpb 1AI (:) ..,,„ , ,,,,,,,,PRIMARY MODESE. "Or 4 1 '' r-.S'. ' --;;af.7,7-P-','ii, it'- 40 ,- ...,..4 ,...- ,- „,....., „--,,,,,,,,,..,.„, ..... ......- „ ,-- ,,,, -..„..„........... 4,„:„..„ ..,,,,, ... ......, ESTIMATED TIMELINE ', Purpose $$ Reduce traffic speeds at intersections on neighborhood streets. ESTIMATED COST Description Traffic circles are circular raised islands in the center of intersections.They Local Principal and Local are best used on neighborhood streets where a full-sized roundabout is not Minor streets. appropriate and are also known as neighborhood traffic circles. APPLICABLE STREET TYPES Safety Objectives and Benefits III • Reduces vehicle through speeds by forcing motorists to maneuver around the island. • Eliminates left turn crashes. MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS • Reduces right turn speed. ITE Traffic Calming Guidance Location Guidance Seattle Design Guidance • Intersections with one travel lane in each direction. BIKESAFE • Roadways with posted speeds of 30 mph or less. PEDSAFE • Residential streets. MORE INFORMATION • Neighborhood bikeways. • Stop-controlled intersections with high delay. 158 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Key Implementation Considerations - . iiir z ' - • Signage should direct traffic flow and make islands visible to motorists. .- • May be landscaped with low shrubs or vegetation that •: i_ .., . does not impede visibility. • Not appropriate for routes with transit,trucks,or other large vehicles. Large vehicles,such as emergency response vehicles or school buses,may need to make left turns at intersections preceding the traffic circle. Y Neighborhood traffic circle in Vancouver,BC • To allow for emergency-response vehicle access, restrict parking on approaches to the traffic circle F or create mountable curbs on the outside of the traffic circle. :_ . .. I' ' +.,i � ' '....:::1 .one , Expected Crash Reduction A CMF has not been developed, but initial research indicates traffic circles can reduce vehicle speeds " (Ewing 1999) and crashes(Thomas et al. 2015). Roanoke Experience . There are no current examples of Traffic Circles in Roanoke. Neighborhood traffic circle on Flyd Avenue Potential Applications Richmond VA Traffic circles are a critical element of neighborhood ' slow zones and have widespread potential application in most of Roanoke's residential neighborhoods including Nli ,_c t -fir . focus areas such as Belmont,Crystal Springs, Melrose- —' . '- 1 - Rugby,and Avendale. ,.•. � i •it t} "' _ . .. — �N Illk 14116.7%w - Neighborhood traffic circle,Silver Spring MD ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1159 Traffic Diverter 96% Harris et al.2013 . 1 EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION 4 ,� n� 0 &41 fiii, ,. It" (Pb .-.... 2 ,_-_-_-____:=:: , f r.PRIMARY MODES r ,_ 2_,, --„, ! i ----7-'51''' 41;11700.' -' ' % - 4-4444r-', -' ' CIO . ... ,,,' r ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Reduces motor vehicle traffic volumes on residential streets by discouraging $$ or preventing through traffic,with exceptions for people on foot or bicycle. ESTIMATED COST Description At an intersection,motor vehicle traffic is diverted using a physical diverter island that prevents turns or certain through movements.This reduces Local motor vehicle volumes and increases the comfort and safety of remaining street users while also preserving emergency access. APPLICABLE STREET TYPES g f` tr}A' y ''tr * -. #�a A a. (r - ? y J* , ✓:. ',:r .uric fr A A `: MAINTENANCE IMPLICATIONS - r, ` "` 7,---;;. li6;::'::: BIKESAFE +; :;:..°47;k..:: j FHWA Traffic Calming ePrimer t t ITE Traffic Calming Guidance •j j ^~ MORE INFORMATION 9 ,,� . One-way plug, Ottawa,ON reverse view with Fire Station access 160 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Safety Benefits - " • Reduces motor vehicle volumes on the diverted roadway -7111• May have moderate impact on motor vehicles speed - . � " E.� on approach to diverter $ tit 1 • Prioritizes pedestrians and bicyclists at u . E diverted intersection Systemic Safety Potential �� � b Spot treatment Location Guidance • Useful on local streets with substantial cut-through traffic. One-way plug, Ottawa,ON looking one way • Useful in areas with strong community interest in 1 � reducing motor vehicle volumes. Design Guidance • Consider whether less restrictive measures are available. • Design should allow easy access for bicyclists and pedestrians. • Use in conjunction with other traffic calming tools if speeding is a concern. k • Must address need to preserve access for "��Hz emergency vehicles,. , • Cut-throughs should be 5'-7'wide to allow access for Diagonal diverter,Seminary Road in Richmond VA bicycles while preventing motor vehicle passage. Roanoke Experience Roanoke has not used access diverters as a traffic calm- ing measure or as part of a bicycle boulevard.There is a concern that traffic may be diverted to other streets. Potential Application Diverters are an important option for neighborhood traffic calming measures and bicycle boulevard devel- opment.They may not have application on main roads that are on the high-risk network and priority corridors and intersections. ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1161 Visual Narrowing N/A EXPECTED CRASH REDUCTION ;,."�!"af cpb 1A1 • PRIMARY MODES t A. ESTIMATED TIMELINE Purpose Encourage slower speeds,greater yielding,and more awareness by visually narrowing travel lanes and using any additional space for sidewalks, bike lanes. ESTIMATED COST Description 12 feet has been the conventional width for a marked travel lane in the Local roads,Collector streets and United States for decades. However,an increasing volume of research Arterials shows that 12 foot travel lanes may actually increase the risk of crashes for motorists and significantly increase that risk for people on foot, bike and APPLICABLE STREET TYPES motorcycle,especially on roads with posted speed limits of 35mph or lower. Narrower travel lanes encourage drivers to slow down and operate with Maryland DOT Guidance greater care;they also reduce the crossing distance for people on foot. NACTO Urban Street Design Guide Additional roadway design changes can create the appearance of narrower PEDSAFE lanes(e.g. bulb-outs and curb extensions)even though actual lane widths Strong Towns are unchanged. MORE INFORMATION Systemic Safety Potential Lane width reductions can be applied systematically as part of road resur- facing and striping programs as well in context-specific locations. Narrower travel lanes can also be adopted as a default or standard operating practice. Safety Objectives and Benefits • Reduces vehicle through speeds by forcing motorists to maneuver around the island. • Eliminates left turn crashes. • Reduces right turn speed. 162 I SAFETY MEASURES TOOLKIT Location Guidance collisions. Reducing lane width would also create more space for other safety and livability features,such as • Useful to re-allocate space to bicycle lanes and wider sidewalks." pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure • Useful to respond to community concerns about speed Roanoke Experience and dangerous roadway conditions Notable examples of lane width reductions in Roanoke include Shenandoah Avenue NW and Melrose Avenue, Design Guidance NW. Shenandoah Avenue NW, between 5th Street and 22nd Street is 34 feet wide and used to have two 17-foot Streets with no buses or truck traffic can function with wide lanes.These were reduced to 10 feet in each lanes widths as narrow as 9 feet, however 10 feet is direction and the space was reallocated to create a generally preferred minimum.This allows the largest two-way Mobility Track.Traffic speeds are unchanged. fire trucks,buses,and service vehicles to operate Melrose Avenue has two lanes in each direction between comfortably when needed. 24th Street NW and Peters Creek Road, NW.These lanes have been narrowed to create a five-foot wide striped Key Implementation mobility lane. Considerations Potential Applications • Signage should direct traffic flow and make islands There are numerous segments of roadway on the High visible to motorists. Risk and High Injury Networks that have wide travel • May be landscaped with low shrubs or vegetation that lanes of 12 feet or more including Hershberger Road NE. does not impede visibility. • Not appropriate for routes with transit,trucks,or other large vehicles. Large vehicles,such as emergency response vehicles or school buses,mayneed to make t +. left turns at intersections preceding the traffic circle. , arm , • To allow for emergency-response vehicle access, •`fry restrict parking on approaches to the traffic circle ci or create mountable curbs on the outside of the traffic circle. Expected Crash Reduction A 2023 Report from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found that even slightly nar- rower lane widths are, in many cases,safer than wider ones . Researchers analyzed8,117 streets in seven cities Shenendoah Avenue with two 10-foot lanes and and found that,"reducing city traffic lane width to 9 feet, MobilityTrack especially in traffic lanes with speed limits up to 35 miles per hour,could help reduce traffic-related 8 https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/narrower-traffic- lanes-in-cities-could-help-lower-risk-of-traffic- related-collisions ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1 163 MICROMOBI LITY NETWORK PLAN Introduction refer specifically to bicycles and bicyclists. Elements of the micromobility network also provide a safe place for Safe,accessible,and connected micromobility infrastruc- people on foot and using a wheelchair. ture plays a vital role in achieving in Roanoke's goal to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries.A well-de- Network etwo rk /\ ssess me nt signed network promotes active transportation and I V 1� /`-�JJ directly reduces conflict points between micromobility Roanoke's current micromobility network is predomi- users and motor vehicles to promote safer streets for all nately centered around the east-west and north-south users.There is a significant latent demand for everyday spines of the Roanoke River Greenway System:the micromobility use in Roanoke:community members Roanoke River and Lick Run Greenways.These two routinely say they feel unsafe on city streets,especially greenways converge on downtown Roanoke and connect main roads(arterials).The Micromobility Network Plan to Mill Mountain Park and destinations along the two was developed concurrently with the city's broader rivers.The greenway system provides extensive oppor- Vision Zero initiative to leverage the public engagement tunities for recreation,fitness,and access to nature. and data analysis tasks of the Safety Action Plan.The Plan lays out a vision for Roanoke's future micromobility The city also has several on road network and identifies the necessary steps and tools facilities including: to prioritize locations where investment will have the • Separated mobility lanes.Often referred to in greatest impact on safety and accessibility for all. Roanoke as Mobility Tracks,these facilities provide dedicated on-street space for micromobility users Roanoke's proximity to mountains, rivers,and rolling with horizontal(e.g.,a buffer or stripe) and vertical country roads have made it a popular destination for (e.g.,flex posts,curb,or physical barrier)sepa- cyclists for decades.The city has steadily invested in ration from vehicles. Existing Mobility Tracks on an expansive system of off-street trails and greenways Shenandoah Avenue and 9th Street use Shur Curb and fostered a rich bicycling community of bike shops, flex posts to provide space for two-way travel on one recreational mountain bikers,commuters,and even side of the street. elite cyclists who have made Roanoke their home.While the city's trail and greenway networks provide a strong ' Striped mobility lanes.There are several miles of foundation for recreation and off-road connectivity, roadways with striped lanes,such as Peters Creek the lack of comprehensive on-street network severely Road SW; 10th Street NW;and Gus Nicks Boulevard,SE. limits access to key destinations and discourages less These corridors designate space with a painted stripe, experienced micromobility users from using bicycles however they do not have any vertical separation and as a primary mode of travel.This plan seeks to address in many areas the buffer to the vehicle lane is only as these challenges, bringing together Roanoke's historical wide as the painted line.Some streets,such as Melrose support for greenways and recreational riding and their Avenue NW,have a double stripe to demarcate the commitment to a future where streets truly safe for lane from the motor vehicle travel lane. Many of these people of all modes and people of all ages and abilities. facilities end suddenly and require users to merge with traffic as they approach intersections. The micromobility network plan is divided into • Shared lanes.Shared Lane Arrows or"sharrows" use three sections: a painted bike symbol to designate corridors where • assessing Roanoke's current infrastructure, vehicles and bicyclists are expected to share the • mapping and planning for a future vision network,and travel lane.They are not considered infrastructure but • establishing a process for prioritizing corridors and can serve a useful educational and promotional role implementing the projects within the network. for motorists and people on bikes. Most sharrows in Roanoke are currently not on streets where the speeds, The term "micromobility is used here to include volumes,and other roadway design elements make the bicycles, e-bikes,scooters,and the use of emerging street safe and comfortable for cyclists of all ages and personal mobility devices.This term was introduced abilities.Streets with sharrows are not included on the after completing the initial network assessment and map of existing micromobility infrastructure. outreach;some of the maps and outreach materials still 166 I MICROMOBILITY NETWORK PLAN • Signed bicycle routes.Some quieter residential • Existing striped mobility lanes do not provide streets in Roanoke were identified and signed as a safe and comfortable experience for people designated bicycle routes many years ago.This helps bicycling,even for more confident cyclists. Issues cyclists locate and connect comfortable routes and including limited visibility,conflicts with turning avoid busier, higher speed corridors.While these vehicles,and distracted and dangerous driving signs are useful for many cyclists in the community, behaviors make these facilities feel unsafe. they function more as a form of wayfinding than as a • There is a strong recreational riding community in bicycle facility. Because of this,signed bicycle routes the city and surrounding areas who want to be able are not shown in the map on the following page. to ride more frequently for every day transportation purposes as well as for recreation. People are not Micromobility Plan Engagement comfortable riding on city streets,especially without the presence of other riders (strength in numbers), Understanding the current state of micromobility use and this suppresses potentially significant increases in Roanoke and planning for the future network was in use. Micromobility use is typically more optional based on the thoughts,concerns,and every-day experi- than walking or driving,thus disincentives to riding ences of people in the community. Engagement for the are more likely to result in people giving up and not plan included the following elements(these are also riding if there is a dangerous or scary intersection or described in the Appendix A): section of roadway that they have to travel(e.g the • Pop up events and group rides at Big Lick Brewing 24th Street Tunnel or arterials in Northeast Roanoke and Cardinal Bike Shop such as Williamson, Plantation,and Hollins Roads). • Workshops with Roanoke's bicycle advocacy • The city's recent investments in two-way separated group,PedalSafe mobility tracks on Shenandoah Avenue and 9th Street • E-bike tour of Roanoke with city staff have generated strong momentum and community • In person tabling at GoFest support for more separated facilities. Protecting users through intersections and maintaining the facilities • Separated mobility lane pilot on Jefferson Street long term continue to be challenges for expanding separated facilities in the city. Takeaways Desktop and in-person analysis of the existing bicy- TURNING r. cle network combined with conversations with city VEHICLES staff, bicycle advocates and local residents revealed -- • several key themes which formed the basis for V TO a a ,,,,,, recommendations: A irli'a-• '. mod.. iva 0 • Roanoke's greenways are strong assets for both : s � _ recreational and everyday trips. -+w�_ " is0isago ", li - • Connectivity between the greenways and on-street 1,. facilities is limited or non-existent.This lack of t connectivity makes it difficult for people to accessthe _ greenways,even for people who may live or work "4, � ' 41 j close to the greenway corridor. 4' ti� Roanoke River ..* -. Greenway gF> • High-speed arterial roadways and other barriers t* "i: ,'.'- throughout the city significantly limit large scale r connectivity. Key barriers mentioned by community ' il, + members include railroads, I-581,and large inter sections such as Orange Avenue where the Lick Run 'g o 9th Stand Greenway crosses at grade from Gainsboro Road SW +tomingside to Burrell Street NW. as k ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1167 Figure 13 Existing Bikeways ,..-- < ROA k ..,••, ,. .--, • •/'' 'i AIRPORT < .„. , / i; ., -... -',t. ,, --,4 ,,, ,,,.. 0. •••••,:,• ,, , 4 '. i , • ..' ...- ,,,,,, . ..----7. , , ' .- ••,-.•• I ----' ' : VJNTJV ..... .,, r . ..„ . .. 1 -......„.. - ,.- .. - ......, - ---.., - --''''-'""k i 'N• , ••-• „„e0.-tf-;*'''''''''.. .,,,,.4 4-4 . ...... . _.....-• -.,,,,•''I -7-' Existing Bikeways BIKE. Lane - Two-way Protected Bikeway — Existing Greenways Exist rig Trails ° " un 0 TOOLE 1--,--1----4---1 DESIGN 168 I MICROMOBILITY NETWORK PLAN SafetyAnalysis most frequently in prior years and suggests that people are not choosing to ride on main roads in the A High Injury Network and High Risk Network for city because of the lack of bike infrastructure and high bicyclists was developed as part of the overall Vision level of stress that is expected there. By contrast,the Zero Safety Action Plan.The crash analysis revealed High Risk Network shows conditions that are associated that most of the high injury and high risk roadways in with crash risk in the future.The map for bicyclists is the city are minor arterial and collector streets such as dominated by busier main roads such as Jamison and the north end of 9th Street SE, 10th Avenue NW,and the Bullitt Avenues SE,Williamson, Plantation,and Hollins intersection of Liberty Road NE and Williamson Road. Roads NE, 13th Street and Wise Avenue SE,Grandin This reflects where serious crashes have happened Avenue NW, and Brandon Ave NW. Roanoke High -.. Injury Network: Bicycles . ti ...?"'"i(c-- --N ;„ Legend .r ' High Injury Network: N d i Bicycles � ' Medium O High —Critical Roanoke Facility 4. .0 Profile Analysis: `®`Y ' Bicycle 7 . � J `: ,F "a, Legend Facility Profile Analysis: K. Bicycle Medium N _ _ High —Critical ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1169 Network Planning The Network Vision Based on the community feedback and analysis of The proposed vision network will provide safe, Roanoke's existing micromobility network,there is an comfortable,and convenient routes for people evident need for expanded infrastructure, particularly in Roanoke, regardless of their age or ability. separated facilities that provide a safe,comfortable It is important to note that the vision network experience for people of all ages and abilities. Improving map incorporates potential changes to existing existing infrastructure and constructing new facilities bikeways as well proposing new facilities. are concrete steps towards creating the vibrant,active, The vision network was developed by combin- multimodal community Roanoke wants to be,and it is ing data from public engagement,the existing a critical piece of achieving Vision Zero.While there is conditions analysis,and the crash analysis broad consensus on the benefits of,and need for,an conducted as part of the Safety Action Plan. It expanded micromobility network,determining where is designed to achieve the following goals: and how to focus a community's limited resources can • Connect people in Roanoke to the places and destina- often be a barrier to seeing projects get built. tions they want to access The Roanoke Micromobility Network Plan presents • Increase separation between micromobility users and recommendations for projects through the framework vehicles on high-speed and high-volume corridors of a vision network.The vision network identifies streets • Close existing infrastructure gaps and trails where future investment will have the great- est impact towards achieving the city's vision of a safe, While much of Roanoke's current network com connected and thriving transportation system.Taking prises striped mobility lanes,these facilities this network-based approach allows Roanoke to strate typically do not provide the necessary protection gically move towards the long term vision, rather than to make the street safe and comfortable for all implementing isolated projects in an ad hoc manner. users. Because of this,the vision network is com The vision network is comprehensive,but it intentionally prised of only the three following facility types: does not include every street in the city,or even every • Separated Mobility Lanes:These facilities will provide street which may currently be a good route for bicycling. physical separation between bicycles and vehicles The lines of the network map reflect where investment and are typically proposed for higher-speed and is most needed and will have the greatest impact.As a higher-volume arterial and collector streets. Proposed result,the network map includes many roads that are separated bikeways can include two-way facilities like practically infeasible for users today because they do those on Shenandoah Avenue and 9th Street as well not have the infrastructure necessary to make them feel as directional one-way separated bike lanes. safe and convenient. • Neighborways: Some streets can become great While the network is visionary,it is feasible to be places for micromobility use even without a desig- implemented over several years.The following sections Hated lane. Neighborways intentionally slow vehicles provide a process for prioritizing and scoring projects so down and add shared lane markings and signage to that work can begin on the most impactful projects first. create an environment where all users can comfort- Systemic recommendations—changes that can be applied ably share the street.Successful Neighborways must across the network—as well as"low hanging fruit"or also ensure safe and convenient connections to get early action projects are also included in the Strategies across major roads and other barriers. and Actions section of the Plan.These represent opportu- • Greenways:The vision network also includes recom- nities to jump-start implementation while efforts begin on mendations for expanded off-street greenway trails. implementing more ambitious new infrastructure projects These recommendations are aligned with the Roanoke on the high-scoring network corridors. Valley's 2018 regional greenway plan. 170 I MICROMOBILITY NETWORK PLAN Separated mobility lanes provide vertical and horizontal separation from traffic.The separation can be achieved by using parked cars,concrete curbs,or flexible delineator posts(or some combination of these). 1�_+ ` 1 ii, ir l'' 149"jl 'il ill ig4; ,4 . .. b '�'r ` �.��. ti "ate � f t j • ,fit, *... *— ;,0.r" .„,,( ' ,A-\., (I, * . —.mom � , -J , — . '-'-7 - -- ® ♦ dP' r i- - --4 On neighborways traffic calming elements, like curb extensions,mini roundabouts and speed cushions slow down traffic so that users can safely and comfortably share the road with vehicles. y 7`• , -it z' s + . , 1 ax�firr •' �"� — n' Cl } f r Pin .N.• I �i_1_ ✓, %; t 1'' 1<l,f s • AI r a Greenways provide wide shared paths that can be used for microbility users.They typically go through parks and natural areas following streams or utility corridors. . t <; ' f"'r I I 11,. —fir ty .. - - ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1171 Figure 14 Vision Network ROA / AIRPORT /7.-- . ,... ...1...\< \ „ SAI_FM 0 iirod .. ............_ loot , i ;%'" , VINTON x �y iiir ,,._.� , al = v a_ 1 } rr j I t Vision Network — Proposed Separate Mobility Lane Proposed Neighborway - - - Proposed Greenway — Existing Greenways Existing Trails o o s 1 mi l + I ' l 172 I MICROMOBILITY NETWORK PLAN Prioritization Prioritization Map and Table The vision network includes 120 miles of new separated The map and table on the following pages show the infrastructure for Roanoke.While each piece of the net- scores for projects in the network.While every corridor may not have received a high score,each piece of the work is valuable, building every project on the network will require incremental progress over years and even network is a critical part of advancing Roanoke's vision decades.This leads to the critical question:what should and working towards a safe, accessible multimodal Roanoke do first? transportation system. Lower scoring projects may also end up being implemented sooner as funding becomes Infrastructure projects have a lot of complex factors that available or opportunities arise to partner with nearby can influence the feasibility and speed of implementa- projects and development. Ultimately there are no bad tion.These issues are not always immediately evident projects on the network. or predictable. Funding and staff availability, political interest,public support,or pressure to react after a Finally,it is important to note that the prioritized project recent crash can all become factors that influence a list is not static.As new data becomes available or community to move a project forward. Roanoke's corn- priorities shift,the scores should be recalculated and mitment to Vision Zero though, begins with a recognition updated.As the first projects are moved forward and that our historical methods for prioritizing projects have completed, new projects will rise also in priority. created a transportation system that is now dangerous for its users.The Vision Zero plan and the micromobility plan are designed to give Roanoke a methodology for identifying and moving future projects forward with a clear rational for why resources are going towards a particular project. This section outlines a transparent system for prioritiz- ing projects on the bicycle network.The prioritization process is designed to serve as a decision-making tool for the city that provides a rationale for difficult deci- sions while still allowing necessary flexibility.The three key steps for prioritizing the network are: a. Determine prioritization criteria. Five prioritization factors,or criteria,were selected based on input from city staff,the TAC,and the community. b. Calculate scores.The proposed network was broken into segment"pieces" at every intersection.Using the five criteria,scores were calculated for every piece of the network.Segment scores were then averaged together to form longer project corridors. Corridors are roughly 1-2 miles in length and their extents are based on logical endpoints such as major intersec- tions or transitions to a new facility type. c. Calculate weighted scores.Weighted scores were then calculated by multiplying the raw score by each criterion's respective percentage weight. ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1 173 Table 7 Prioritization Criteria Criteria Description Score Weight Roanoke's geography and historical Does this segment cross a major barrier development patters present significant (railroad, river,or I-581)? Connect across barriers to a complete and continues 15% major barriers network and limit the routes available • Yes— 10 pts to cyclists. • No—0 pts One of the greatest benefits of a Is this segment within a quarter mile of a connected network is people of all ages school,grocery store,community center, Help people and abilities being able to get where or library? reach daily they want to go without having to use a 25% destinations car.Schools,grocery stores,community • Yes, 1 destination—6 pts centers,and libraries were all identified • Yes,2 destinations—8 pts as important daily destinations. • Yes 3 or more destinations— 10 pts Roanoke's parks and greenways will always play a key role in the city's Is this segment within a quarter mile of a Link to parks micromobility network.Connecting with park or a greenway? and recreation 15% hubs nature and being able to access larger • Yes— 10 pts regional trail networks are things many • No—0 pts people love most about living in this area. Is this segment along or connected to a As part of the city's larger vision zero corridor on the Bicycle HIN? Address safety effort,it is critical that the micromobility 15% concerns network address areas where there are • Yes, HIN level medium—6 pts patterns of crashes. • Yes,HIN level high—8 pts • Yes, HIN level critical— 10 pts The vision network is not starting from scratch.Connecting to and enhancing Is this segment along or connected to an Leverage places where some infrastructure existing micromobility facility? previous already exists helps ensure future Investments • Yes— 10 pts 30% investments build on the wok that has • No—0 pts already been done. TOTALS /50 pts /60 pts 174 I MICROMOBILITY NETWORK PLAN Figure 15 Prioritized Mobility Network ROA AIRPORT '-,k,' ,,, lif . )01 ..1 ik ..,,. 4r t SALEM a? 76 103 56' ,� II4i . �a��ft 1 '02�t too 1 ,...,,„ -.., --- VINTON ar .........._ ____._ .--60 ,is 58 .sr57, . . 0401. .,...,, 66,o ".... � 55 , • 4 it s. .. _ 7 _ , ____,) __ _ .,,. , Prioritized Mobility Network — High — Existing Greenways — Medium-High Existing Trails — Medium E Corridor IDs Medium Low — for highest tier corridors --- Low 0 05 1 ml O 1 + 1 + 1 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1175 Implementation Framework - moving from corridors to projects The corridors in the micromobility network are prior- • Repurpose:This project type is for areas where a new itized based on the impact they would have towards facility is needed, but there is excess roadway space overcoming barriers,connecting people to destinations, that can be repurposed without moving the existing addressing safety and leveraging previous investments. curbs. Existing space that can be repurposed could While the corridors are identified as separated mobility include on-street parking,wide lanes,or even an lanes, neighborways,or greenway facilities, implement- entire travel lane. ing these specific facilities will look very different on • For Separated Mobility Lanes: each corridor and often even on different portions of a > Narrow travel lanes to provide space for single corridor. Existing right-of-way,traffic patterns, vertical and horizontal buffers—especially in adjacent land uses,and existing pedestrian or transit locations with existing striped mobility lanes facilities are just a few of the factors that will ultimately > Where on-street parking exists, repurpose the shape the specific projects along a corridor that lead to spaces closest to the intersection to provide the final facility. buffer space through the interesection Rather than attempting to analyze all the relevant > Align projects with other re-striping and factors for each corridor,this plan provides a frame- re-paving projects work for future implementation to guide the process of • For Neighborways: moving from vision network to prioritized corridors to > Use on-street parking and additional roadway individual projects. Implementing projects on the vision width to add traffic calming elements such as network will take one of three forms: curb extensions,chicanes,and neck downs. • Maintain and Enhance: Many corridors and portions of > Most neighborway projects can be done by corridors on the vision network already have existing repurposing existing asphalt facilities. In these locations the"project" may simply • Build New: In places on the vision network where be to maintain the existing facility or look for ways to there is no existing facility and there is not roadway upgrade the facility to continue providing as safe and space available to repurpose within the existing comfortable of a bicycling experience as possible. curb line,a new facility will need to be constructed. • For Separated Mobility Lanes: While these projects are significantly more expensive > Ensure they remain clear of roadway debris and complex,they provide an opportunity to make a and flexposts are replaced as needed significant impact on safety and comfort and these > Explore opportunities to upgrade flex posts corridors often become the most used and beloved with more permanent materials pieces of the network. > Provide additional separation at intersections • For Separated Mobility Lanes: and transition points along the corridor > Evaluate land use and traffic patterns to • For Neighborways: determine the best type of separated facility. > Keep signage updated and maintain existing > Look for opportunities for the facility to traffic calming measures support additional community initiatives and > Explore low-cost measures to slow-down goals.This could include partnering with a vehicles and increase visibility of users local artist, using the buffer space as green • For Greenways: infrastructure and stormwater retention,or > Continue greenway maintenance pairing the project with other pedestrian and > Add signage and wayfinding to promote public realm improvements like sidewalks,and seamless transitions between greenways and pedestrian scale lighting. on-street infrastructure 176 I MICROMOBILITY NETWORK PLAN ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN 4. 4 Qr'iL • Jp C ..- Roanoke Speed Management 71,,,--,,, ,„: Action Plan r 4 ,'...o.'_ ,_,- - / fir' 'r #10.ATA 4 6.....a -rile' \ =_It ,,t ' .„4. INFL - r _ C?:5IC?;b VII ,,, _ it lily ..., ,..... imik ii A 'O toXcel, LLC 178 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN Contents Executive Summary... 2 Chapter 1: Introduction 3 Speed Management—A Roadmap for Getting to Safe Speeds 3 Safety Goals of the SMAP (Interim Goals to help meet Roanoke's VZ Goals) 3 Virginia and Regional Speed Management Policies 3 Speed Limit Setting Policies and Legislation 4 Speed Enforcement 5 Existing Safety Plans& Initiatives 5 Roanoke Programs to Coordinate with: 6 VDOT Programs to Coordinate with• 6 Chapter 2:Speed Related Safety Concerns Overview 8 Speed Related Citations Data (2016-2023: Roanoke,VA) 8 Chapter 3: Roadway Typologies—Speed Safety Concerns Specific to Various Types of Roadways 10 Introduction to Roanoke's Speed Management Typologies 10 1) Downtown: Local, 25 13 2) Downtown: Collector and Arterial, 25-35 15 3) Local, 15-25 18 4) Collector and Arterial, 25-35 21 5) Collector and Arterial,40+ 24 Chapter 4:Countermeasure Toolbox 26 Funding 27 Chapter 5:Summary of Key Speed-Related Safety Concerns by Typology 29 1) Downtown: Local, 25 MPH 29 2) Downtown: Collector&Arterial, 25-35 MPH 30 3) Local, 15-25 MPH 31 4) Collector&Arterial, 25-35 MPH 32 5) Collector&Arterial,40+ MPH 33 Page 1 1 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1 179 Executive Summary This Speed Management Action Plan (SMAP)was developed to support the City of Roanoke's Vision Zero goal of eliminating all fatal and severe injury crashes(KSI) by 2040. Speeding plays a disproportionately large role in these serious and fatal crashes, making speed management a critical component of the City's safety strategy.To support this goal,the SMAP sets measurable interim targets, including reducing speeding related KSI crashes by 3 crashes/year and reducing vulnerable road users(VRU)-including pedestrians and bicyclists- KSI crashes by 3 crashes/year. The SMAP aligns with existing city and state initiatives, integrating relevant programs, plans, and policies to ensure consistency with broader safety efforts. It establishes a clear framework for identifying speeding-related safety issues and deploying targeted, data-driven countermeasures at high-risk locations across Roanoke. To inform the plan,the project team analyzed crash data from 2016 to 2023 and conducted speed differential studies across the entire city. Roadways were categorized into five typology groups based on their function, posted speed limit, and surrounding land use.The analysis revealed that while speeding related crashes accounted for 16%of all crashes,they comprised 34%of fatal or serious injury crashes, showing the disproportionate role speeding plays in the severity of crashes.Additional insights indicated that arterial and collector roadways had a higher rate of severe outcomes compared to local streets, VRUs are more susceptible to severe outcomes, and school and work zones have a small but notable share of speeding-related crashes. Each roadway was categorized into one of five typology groups: • Downtown: Local-25 • Downtown: Collector&Arterial- 25-35 • Local - 15-25 • Collector&Arterial-25-35 • Collector&Arterial-40+. Crash and speed data were analyzed for each typology group, normalized by roadway mileage,to determine both the typologies with the largest impact on speeding-related crashes and the highest-risk locations within each typology group. The SMAP outlines a comprehensive set of countermeasures tailored to roadway typologies and crash types.The toolbox includes a range of solutions from engineering treatments, educational campaigns, and enforcement strategies, each matched to its appropriate roadway context. Potential funding sources and opportunities were also identified to support implementation. Finally,the plan includes a summary of key speeding-related safety concerns, high-risk corridors, and countermeasure recommendations for each roadway typology.Together,these elements form a structured, actionable roadmap for making Roanoke's streets safer and more equitable for all users through strategic speed management. Page 12 180 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN Chapter 1: Introduction Speed Management— A Roadmap for Getting to Safe Speeds Excessive speeds significantly increase both the likelihood and severity of crashes by reducing drivers' reaction and stopping times, which endangers not only drivers but also pedestrians and other vulnerable road users(VRUs) who lack vehicle-level protections.This Speed Management Action Plan (SMAP) is Roanoke's roadmap towards safe speeds on all Roanoke roads towards the goal of Vision Zero through appropriate speed limits, roadway design, education, and enforcement.This SMAP provides a tailored strategy for Roanoke, using data analysis, stakeholder input, and specific countermeasures to tackle speed-related concerns and ensure safer roadways for all Roanoke roadways. Safety Goals of the SMAP (Interim Goals to help meet Roanoke's VZ Goals) Speed management is central to achieving Roanoke's goal of Vision Zero by 2040,through focusing on reducing speed-related crashes and improving compliance with posted speed limits across the city. Vision Zero calls for the elimination of all fatal and serious injury(KSI) crashes. Below are specific targets to work towards the elimination of all speed related KSI crashes on Roanoke Roadways by 2040. • Reduce speeding related KSI crashes by 3 crashes/year. • Reduce VRU KSI crashes by 3 crashes/year. • Reduce VRU speeding related KSI crashes by 1 crash/year. o VRUs include pedestrians, bicyclists,and motorcyclists • Improve compliance with posted speed limits. • Targets for reduction in speeding and aggressive driving. • Reduce System Kinetic Energy o Safe Speed Limits: Establishing speed limits appropriate for specific road types and conditions. o Consider a"20 is Plenty": a program centered on the idea that a speed limit of 20 mph is appropriate for local, residential streets and neighborhood centers. Norfolk Falls Church HB 1071 • Target reductions in speeding-related fatal crashes for roadway typologies: o Downtown: Collector and Arterial, 25-35 (9) o Collector and Arterial, 25-35 (8) • Target reductions in speed related serious injury crashes for roadway typologies: o Collector and Arterial, 25-35 (51) o Local, 15-25 (42) o Downtown: Collector and Arterial, 25-35 (27) Through a combination of targeted enforcement, infrastructure improvements, and community-focused programs, Roanoke's speed management goals seek to foster a safer, more livable environment for all. Virginia and Regional Speed Management Policies Across Virginia:The Virginia Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)2022-20261 emphasizes speed management as a key strategy to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries. It advocates for: 1 https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/about/safety-plan/ Page 13 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1181 • Setting Safe Speed Limits: Establishing speed limits appropriate for specific road types and conditions. • Implementing Traffic Calming Measures: Utilizing design features to naturally reduce vehicle speeds. • Enhancing Enforcement: Increasing the use of speed enforcement technologies and targeted enforcement campaigns. Regionally:The Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission has a Pedestrian Vision Plan'focusing on pedestrian safety,with speed management as a central element.The plan recommends: • Lowering Speed Limits in High-Pedestrian Areas:To protect vulnerable road users. • Implementing Traffic Calming Measures: Such as road diets and speed humps to reduce vehicle speeds. Speed Limit Setting Policies and Legislation For speed limit setting, Virginia's General Assembly establishes statewide statutory speed limits,while cities,towns, and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) have the authority to adjust speed limits on roads they oversee. Below are the default, statutory speed limits for Virginia': • Residential and Business Areas: 25 MPH • Unpaved Roads: 35 MPH • Most Highways: 55 MPH for passenger vehicles;45 MPH for trucks on routes numbered 600 or higher In Roanoke,these general limits apply unless otherwise posted. Making adjustments to these defaults requires an engineering study to ensure the speed aligns with roadway safety standards. Notably, in June 2019,the city reduced speed limits in most neighborhood school zones from 25 MPH to 15 MPH to enhance student safety. The 11th edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD)4, released in December 2023, introduces updated guidelines for setting speed limits to enhance road safety. Notably, it de- emphasizes the traditional reliance on the 85th percentile speed—the speed at or below which 85%of drivers travel under free-flowing conditions—as the primary determinant for speed limits. Instead,the MUTCD now recommends a more comprehensive approach that considers multiple factors, including: • Roadway Environment:The surrounding land use and its impact on traffic dynamics. • Roadway Characteristics: Features such as lane width,shoulder conditions, and alignment. • Geographic Context: Urban, suburban, or rural settings and their unique traffic patterns. • Crash Experience: Historical data on traffic incidents in the area. • Speed Distribution:The range and variability of vehicle speeds observed. • Analysis of Speed Trends: Patterns in speed behavior over time. 2 https://rvarc.org/2021/06/22/faster-dangerous-traffic-what-is-roanoke-doing-about-it/ https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/about/our-system/highways/speed-limits/ 4 https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/11th_Edition/Chapter2b.pdf Page 14 182 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN This holistic approach aims to set speed limits that are context-sensitive and promote safety for all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. By moving beyond a sole focus on driver behavior,the MUTCD encourages transportation agencies to tailor speed limits to the specific conditions and safety needs of each roadway segment. Speed Enforcement In Roanoke, speed enforcement combines traditional methods with community-focused initiatives: • Targeted Patrols:The Roanoke Police Department conducts regular speed enforcement in areas with high traffic volumes and frequent speeding complaints. Notable locations include Hershberger Road, Orange Avenue, and the Roy Webber Expressway. • Community Reporting: Residents can report speeding issues in their neighborhoods, prompting the police to conduct speed monitoring and implement enforcement measures as needed'. Virginia imposes fines based on the severity and location of the speeding offense: • General Speeding: $6 per mph over the limit. • School or Work Zones: $7 per mph over the limit. • Certain Residential Areas:Additional$200 Fine for Speeding 46.2-878.2 plus$8 per mph over the limit. • Highway Safety Corridors: Up to$500,with a$200 minimum if classified as a criminal offense. In Virginia,the use of Speed Safety Cameras(SSCs) is regulated and permitted in specific areas to enhance road safety.According to §46.2-882.1 of the Code of Virginia, SSCs, referred to as"photo speed monitoring devices," are authorized in the following zones6: • School Crossing Zones:These are areas designated for pedestrian crossing near schools,where speed cameras can monitor and enforce speed limits to protect students. • Highway Work Zones:Active construction or maintenance areas on highways where speed cameras help ensure the safety of workers by enforcing reduced speed limits. • High-Risk Intersection Segments: Specific highway segments located within 1,000 feet of school property boundaries, particularly at intersections with marked crosswalks where a traffic fatality has occurred since January 1, 2014. In these designated zones,vehicles detected traveling at least 10 miles per hour above the posted speed limit may incur a civil penalty of up to$100.The implementation of SSCs in these areas aims to enhance safety for pedestrians, construction workers, and all road users by encouraging adherence to speed limits. Existing Safety Plans & Initiatives Roanoke has implemented several measures to address speeding and enhance safety in both residential and commercial areas.The "No Need to Speed" campaign is a key initiative aimed at raising awareness about the dangers of speeding and encouraging safer driving habits'.This campaign includes educational efforts, community engagement, and visible road signage to remind drivers of the importance of https://www.roanokecountyva.gov/1085/Crime-Reports https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title46.2/chapter8/section46.2-882.1/ https://planroanoke.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/APD-NewsRelease-FINAL2.pdf Page 15 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1183 adhering to speed limits.Additionally,the city has increased fines for speeding violations in these areas to deter reckless driving and protect pedestrians$. These efforts are part of a broader strategy to reduce traffic fatalities and injuries, particularly those involving pedestrians,which have been a significant concern in recent years. Roanoke Programs to Coordinate with: • City of Roanoke Pedestrian Safety Initiative Shifts Focus to School Zones'-Traffic Safety Campaigns'° o Reduce Distracted Driving(2025) o Keep each other safe campaign o Change lanes to pass campaign o School zone safety campaign o No need to speed campaign o Every corner is a crosswalk campaign • Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Action Plan (PBSAP)11 • Roanoke Technical Education Center" • Roanoke BRITE Program' • Roanoke Bee City USA Program' • Clean Valley Council Adopt-A-Street" VDOT Programs to Coordinate with: • VDOT Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment(VRUSA)16 • Virginia's 2022-2026 Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)17 o Speeding strategies and actions in SHSP: • Adopt an approach that considers risk when prioritizing locations for safety improvements and programs • Recognize traffic safety as a public health issue and establish policies and programs that promote safe behavior and reduce crash severity outcomes. • Develop and implement programs that provide education and awareness to high risk road users. • Implement innovative solutions and utilize current and emerging technologies. • Relevant VDOT Safety Programsl8 o Pedestrian and bicycling programs 8 https://rvarc.org/2021/06/22/faster-dangerous-traffic-what-is-roanoke-doing-about-it/ https://planroanoke.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/APD-Schools-NR_FINAL.pdf 10 https://planroanoke.org/pedestriansafety/ 11 http://bit.ly/VDOTPBSAP 12https://www.rcps.info/rotec 13 https://www.roanokeva.gov/1910/BRITE-Corporate-Sponsorship 14 https://www.playroanoke.com/bee-city-usa/ 1s https://www.cleanvalley.org/adopt-a-street 16 https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/media/vdotvirginiagov/about/strategic-highway-safety-plan/vru-safety- assessment-2024-2026_acc03182024_J E.pdf 17 https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/media/vdotvirginiagov/about/strategic-highway-safety-plan/Virginia-2022-2026- Strategic-Highway-Safety-Plan_acc04102024_JE.pdf 18 https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/about/programs/ Page 16 184 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN • Bicycle and pedestrian program • Safe routes to school o Safety programs • Highway safety corridors • Safety service patrol • Work zone safety o Infrastructure programs • Neighborhood traffic programs • Arterial preservation o Innovation programs • Virginia transportation research council • Connected and automated vehicles • Virginia's smart road Page 17 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1185 Chapter 2: Speed Related Safety Concerns Overview Speed Related Crash Data (2016-2023: Roanoke,VA) Crash data from all Roanoke roadways from 2016-2023 was analyzed to identify speed related trends. The data showed that speeding related crashes accounted for 16%of all crashes, but 34%of fatal or serious injury crashes, showing that speeding plays a disproportionate role in the severity of the crashes on Roanoke Roadways. Below are some high-level insights from the crash data across Roanoke: 1. Overall Crashes: o Total crashes: 12,778. o Speed-related crashes: 2,024 (16%of total crashes). 2. KSI (Killed or Seriously Injured) Crashes: o Total KSI crashes: 520 (4%of all crashes). o Speed-related KSI crashes: 179 (34% of KSI crashes). o Speed-related KSI crashes by road type: ■ Local Streets: 45 (8.5% of speed-related crashes). ■ Arterials: 98 (11%of speed-related crashes). • Collectors: 24 (9%of speed-related crashes). 3. Crash Categories: o Pedestrian crashes: ■ Speed-related: 21 (0.2% of total crashes). • Speed-related KSI: 12 (7% of speed-related KSI crashes). o Bicyclist crashes: ■ Speed-related: 1 (0%of total crashes). ■ Speed-related KSI: 0 (0%of speed-related KSI crashes). o School zone crashes: • Speed-related: 29 (0.2% of total crashes). ■ Speed-related KSI: 4 (2%of speed-related KSI crashes). o Work zone crashes: ■ Speed-related: 56 (0.4%of total crashes). ■ Speed-related KSI: 3 (2% of speed-related KSI crashes). 4. Speed Related Citations by Calendar Year • 2016- 2663 ■ 2017—3638 ■ 2018- 3680 ■ 2019- 3884 ■ 2020- 2074 ■ 2021- 1167 ■ 2022 - 1412 ■ 2023 - 1920 5. Key Insights: Page 18 186 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN o Speeding plays a significant role in severe crashes, contributing to over one-third of KSI incidents. o While most speeding-related crashes result in property damage only (PDO), arterials and collectors have higher rates of severe outcomes compared to local streets. o Vulnerable users (pedestrians and bicyclists) are minimally represented in speed- related crashes, but their KSI rates underscore their susceptibility to severe outcomes. o School and work zones have a small but notable share of speed-related crashes, highlighting areas for targeted safety improvements. This data underscores the importance of addressing speeding, particularly on higher-speed roadways and in critical zones, to enhance roadway safety. Page 19 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1187 Chapter 3: Roadway Typologies — Speed Safety Concerns Specific to Various Types of Roadways Introduction to Roanoke's Speed Management Typologies Five typologies are identified in this SMAP to categorize the speed-related safety concerns and identify appropriate countermeasures.They are classified based on posted speed limit,functional classification, and land use (Downtown,Village Center, Local Commercial, Suburban,Traditional, Industrial, Open Space and Recreational, Regional Commercial). Downtown: (Downtown, Village Center, Local Commercial) 1. Local—25 MPH 2. Collector&Arterial—25-35 MPH Local:(Suburban, Traditional, Industrial, Open Space and Recreational, Regional Commercial) 3. 15-25 MPH Collector&Arterial: (Suburban, Traditional, Industrial, Open Space and Recreational, Regional Commercial) 4. 25-35 MPH 5. 40+MPH The typologies are illustrated below, both graphically and visually, in Figure 2 and Figure 2 below. Page 110 188 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN -Downtown Loca I.Collector& After al 0 Downtown 4 t. o ;aJ p Collector & O Arterial t ► 15mph 25mph 30mph 35mph 40mph Posted Speed Limit Figure 1.Roadway Typology Classifications—Graph of Land Use vs Posted Speed Limit O O i,� ill • ( '£ _ .41, Ailik,:' '.i L ticDowntown 25mph Local Downtown 25-35mph Collector &Arterial ® ® o 15-25mph Local 25-35mph Collector&Arterial 40mph+Collector&Arterial Figure 2.Roadway Typology Classifications-Example Images of Roanoke Roadways for each Typology The typologies represent all local, collector,and arterial roadways in Roanoke, Virginia. However,those roadway miles are not spread evenly throughout the typology groups. Because of this,the number of Page 111 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1189 crashes in each typology were normalized by the number of roadway miles of each typology.The percentage of total roadway miles for each typology is indicated under the typology name on the horizontal axis(Figure 3). The graph below(Figure 3) shows the speeding versus non-speeding related KSI crashes by roadway miles for each typology group.The total number of speeding-related KSI crashes and the percentage of that to the total number of KSI crashes were added for each typology group. The local, 15-25 mph typology group has the highest number of roadway miles in Roanoke and a high number of total speeding-related KSI crashes, however, it also has the lowest crash per mileage rate. It is important to note that this typology group has significantly more miles than the rest of the typology groups which could account for the small crash per mile rate. Both collector and arterial, 25-35 typology groups have the largest crash per mile rates and high total number of speeding-related KSI crashes.These typology groups account for the second and third highest number of roadway miles in Roanoke. >- Collector&Arterial,40+MPH 5(42%) 2.1% 0 0 T Collector&Arterial,25-35 MPH 59(32%) 16% v CIO a Local,15-25 ■ 69.6% 49(43%) a co oDowntown:Collector&Arterial,25-35 6.9% 36(28%) 0 Y c a) Downtown:Local,25 8(29/) a 5.4% 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Crashes per Mile #(%):Speeding-Related KSI Crashes(%of Total ■Total Speeding-Related KSI Crashes by Roadway Mileage KSI Crashes that were Speeding-Related) IN Total Non-Speeding Related KSI Crashes by Roadway Mileage Figure 3-Speeding-Related and Non-Speeding Related KSI Crashes for each typology group from 2016 to 2023,divided by the roadway mileage for each category. Page 112 190 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN 1) Downtown: Local, 25 This typology includes local roads with a speed limit of 25 (9 mph within downtown areas(Downtown,Village Center, and Local Commercial) pictured to the right in Figure 4. This \t` 1' �ti ,,• encompasses many lower speed roads in downtown • ` ''`;F'"0, Roanoke including 15t Street SW, 3rd Street SW Market Street ��� s SE, Luck Avenue SW, and Norfolk Avenue SW. These roadways typically have high levels of pedestrian activity. Crash Data Figure 4-Example of a Downtown:Local,25 MPH Roadway The Downtown: Local roadways with the highest number of total crashes between 2016 and 2023 (744)were: • Melrose Avenue NW(103) (from Forest Park Blvd NW to 16th St NW) • 5th Street SW(42) (from Mountain Ave SW to Shenandoah Ave NW) • 3rd Street SW(35) (from Maple Ave SW to Norfolk Ave SW) The roadways with the highest number of fatal or severe injury (KSI) crashes 4 (28)were: • • Melrose Avenue NW(7) (from ``4. 441 "b Forest Park Blvd NW to 16th St NW) a ilk • Burrell Street NW(3) (from f Orange Ave NW to Douglass Ave NW) Speeding-Related Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes —f IN Network Typology —Uhan:25,Local The roadways with the highest number Character astrIRs an Corn Local of total speeding-related crashes Morn Village Center between 2016 and 2023 (76)were: • Melrose Avenue NW(10) (from Figure 5-Downtown:Local,25 Roadways with the HIN and Speeding-Related KSI Crashes Forest Park Blvd NW to 16th St NW) • 5th Street SW(5) (from Mountain Ave SW to Shenandoah Ave NW) The roadways with the highest number of speeding-related KSI crashes(8) were: • Burrell Street NW(2) (from Orange Ave NW to Douglass Ave NW) • Melrose Avenue NW(2) (from Forest Park Blvd NW to 16th St NW) Of the 8 speeding-related KSI crashes: • 1 (12%)was fatal and 7 (88%) were severe injury crashes. • 4 (50%)were angle crashes and 2 (25%)were head on crashes. • 7 (88%) had no adverse conditions and 1 (12%)was foggy conditions. • 4 (50%)were during darkness with the road lit and 3 (38%)were during daylight. Page 113 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1191 • 7 (88%)were during dry conditions and 1 (12%)was during wet conditions. • 6 (75%) were within an intersection. • 7 (88%)were on straight-level roadways and 1 (12%)was on a straight-grade roadway. • 2 (25%) were under the influence of drugs or alcohol. • 3 (38%) were distracted. • 1 (12%) involved a pedestrian. There are a high number of angle (50%) and intersection (75%) speeding-related KSI crashes on this roadway typology. It is recommended that an intersection analysis be performed to evaluate sight distance and traffic control device(TCD) compliance.A speed study should also be performed to determine the appropriate or target speed of the roadways and ensure the posted speed limit aligns. There were also a number of risky behaviors other than speeding(6 of 8), such as drug/alcohol usage, distracted driving, and unrestrained occupants that were associated with these speeding-related KSI crashes.Targeted education and enforcement campaigns are recommended to reduce risky driving behavior and increase road safety. Speed Data The difference between the 85th percentile speed and the • speed limit was analyzed across this typology.The roadway • 1 , with the highest speed differential was: 10 • • Melrose Avenue NW: 9.57 (weekdays) and 10.16 f 5 (weekends) 0 For the difference between the 85th percentile speed and the a 5 average speed,the roadway with the highest differentials was: 10 • Luck Avenue SE: 9.58(weekdays) and 8.47 (weekends) 1S to . Figure 6 is a box plot that compares speed differentials for this typology group,which included the differential between the •Weekday Speed Limit vs 85th Percentile 85th percentile speeds and both the posted speed limits and ■Weekend Speed Limit vs85thPercentile the average speeds. •weekday Average Speed vs 85th Percentile Speed Limit vs.85th Percentile: For weekdays(red box),the •Weekend Average Speed vs85thPercentile 85th percentile speeds are mostly below the posted speed Figure 6-Downtown:Local,25 MPH Speed Differential Box limits, resulting in negative differentials. However,there are Plots notable outliers where the 85th percentile speeds exceed the posted limits by more than 10 MPH.A similar trend is observed for weekends (green box),with negative differentials being typical but with some outlier roadways showing significant positive differentials. Average Speed vs.85th Percentile: For both weekdays (blue box) and weekends(purple box),the speed differentials between the average and the 85th percentile speeds are only a few miles per hour, but some outlier roadways have differentials of almost 10 MPH, which shows a wide variation in driver speed choice. Page 114 192 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN The plot highlights variability in speed patterns,with weekdays and weekends showing broadly similar trends but with subtle differences in the range and distribution of differentials. Outliers indicate certain roadways where speed management may be needed—these roadways were listed at the beginning of this section. 2) Downtown: Collector and Arterial, 25-35 This typology includes collector and arterial roads with a • speed limit between 25 and 35 mph within downtown :_ • rr"" , areas(Downtown,Village Center, and Local Commercial) " ' `" >' _- pictured to the right in Figure 77. This encompasses many — urban streets in Roanoke including Williamson Road NW Melrose Avenue NW and Jefferson Street.These roadways typically have pedestrian infrastructure and fast-moving vehicles. • Figure 7-Example of a Downtown:Collector and Arterial,25-35 Crash Data MPH Roadway The Downtown: Collector and Arterial roadways with the highest number of total crashes between 2016 and 2023 (3422)were: • Williamson Road NW(438) (from Liberty Rd NE to Hildebrand Rd NW) • Orange Avenue NE(398) (from 20th St NE to Blue Hills Dr NE) • Orange Avenue NW(263) (from Salem Tpke NW to 16th St NW; from 11th St NW to 10th St NW;and from 200 ft W of Burrell St NW to 900 feetSee ' t EofBurrellStNW The roadways with the highest number of KSI 61 crashes (129) were: I 1 • Orange Avenue NE (17) (from 20th St r, 5peA1r-Re atetl Pabl and Senot,s Injvy Crashes NE to Blue Hills Dr NE) +� —NIN Network • Williamson Road NW(17) (from Typology —Urban:25-35,Collectar&Artenal Liberty Rd NE to Hildebrand Rd NW) NI Com Local • Orange Avenue NW(16) (from SalemAN Village Center Tpke NW to 16th St NW;from 11th St NW to 10th St NW; and from 200 ft W Figure 8-Downtown:Collector and Arterial,25-35 MPH Roadways with the HIN and Speeding-Related KSI Crashes of Burrell St NW to 900 feet E of Burrell St NW) The roadways with the highest number of total speeding-related crashes between 2016 and 2023 (356) were: • Williamson Road NW(46) (from Liberty Rd NE to Hildebrand Rd NW) • Orange Avenue NE (31) (from 20th St NE to Blue Hills Dr NE) Page 115 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1193 • Melrose Avenue NW(30) (from Ward St NW to 31st St NW) The roadways with the highest number of speeding-related KSI crashes(36) were: • Williamson Road NW (9) (from Liberty Rd NE to Hildebrand Rd NW) • Orange Avenue NE(7) (from 20th St NE to Blue Hills Dr NE) • Melrose Avenue NW(6) (from Ward St NW to 31st St NW) Of the 36 speeding-related KSI crashes: • 9 (25%)were fatal and 27(75%)were severe injury crashes. • 15 (42%)were fixed objects off the road crashes and 8(22%)were rear end crashes. • 34 (94%) had no adverse conditions and 2 (6%) were rain conditions. • 20(56%)were during darkness with the road lit and 13 (36%)were during daylight. • 34(94%)were during dry conditions and 2 (6%)were during wet conditions. • 17 (47%)were not within an intersection and 11 (31%)were within an intersection. • 33 (92%)were on straight-level roadways and 2 (1%)were on a straight-grade roadway. • 11 (31%)were under the influence of drugs or alcohol. • 13 (36%)were distracted. • 4 (11%) involved a pedestrian There are a high number of fixed object off the road crashes(42%) and crashes during night with the roadway lit (56%). It is recommended that a speed study and TCD evaluation be performed to adjust speed limits based on roadway conditions and ensure the current TCDs are effective in increasing roadway safety. Additional TCDs may need to be considered and implemented to reduce operating speeds and increase compliance. It is recommended that roadway lighting also be evaluated to ensure visibility during nighttime conditions. There were also a number of risky behaviors other than speeding (25 of 36),such as drug/alcohol usage, distracted driving, and unrestrained occupants that were associated with these speeding-related KSI crashes.Targeted education and enforcement campaigns are also recommended to reduce risky driving behavior and increase road safety. Of the 36 speeding-related KSI crashes,4 (11%) involved a pedestrian. It is recommended that existing pedestrian infrastructure be evaluated to ensure adequate sight distance and safety of pedestrian and additional infrastructure or countermeasures be implemented if deemed necessary. Page 116 194 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN Speed Data The difference between the 85th percentile speed and the speed limit was analyzed across this typology.The ,, roadways with the highest differentials were: io • Franklin Road SW: 11.90 (weekdays) and 12.76 (weekends) f 5 • Liberty Road NW: 11.73 (weekdays) and 12.00 (weekends) r, o • Williamson Road NE: 11.19(weekdays) and 12.27 f (weekends) For the difference between the 85th percentile speed and the average speed,the roadways with the highest • differentials were: •Weekday Speed limit vs 85th Percentile • Gus Nicks Boulevard NE:9.86(weekdays) and ■weekend Speed Limit vs 85th Percentile is Weekday Average Speed vs 85th Percentile 9.43 (weekends) ■Weekend Average Speed vs 85th Percentile • Electric Road SW:9.09 (weekdays) and 9.12 Figure 9-Downtown:Collector and Arterial,25-35 MPH (weekends) Speed Differential Box Plots • Old Vinton Road SE: 8.64(weekdays) and 8.42 (weekends) Figure 9 is a box plot that compares speed differentials for this typology group, which included the differential between the 85th percentile speeds and both the posted speed limits and the average speeds. Speed Limit vs.85th Percentile: For weekdays (red box),the 85th percentile speeds are mostly above the posted speed limits by a few miles per hour.There are notable outliers where the 85th percentile speeds exceed the posted limits by more than 10 MPH. A similar trend is observed for weekends(green box),with some negative differentials but with most roadways showing significant positive differentials. Average Speed vs.85th Percentile: For both weekdays (blue box)and weekends(purple box),the speed differentials between the average and the 85th percentile speeds are only a few miles per hour, but some outlier roadways have differentials of almost 10 MPH, which shows a wide variation in driver speed choice. The plot highlights variability in speed patterns, with weekdays and weekends showing broadly similar trends but with subtle differences in the range and distribution of differentials. Outliers indicate certain roadways where speed management may be needed—these roadways were listed at the beginning of this section. Page 117 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1195 3) Local, 15-25 z This typology includes local roads with speed limits of . 25 mph or less in residential areas(Suburban, , "�` � Traditional, Regional Commercial, Open Space/Recreational, and Industrial) pictured to the right S ( 1 -, in Figure 10. This encompasses low speed roads in Roanoke including Main Street SW, Staunton Avenue -�; NW, and Loudon Avenue NW.These roadways typically �` have some pedestrian activity and low-speed vehicles in �� residential areas. Figure 10-Example of a Local,15-25 MPH Roadway Crash Data The Local roadways with the highest number of total crashes between 2016 and 2023 (2797)were: • Loudon Avenue NW (63) (from 24th St NW to 5th St NW) • Main Street SW (45) (from Brandon Ave SW to Winchester Ave SW) • Staunton Avenue NW(43) (from Crescent St NW to 5th St NW) The roadways with the highest number of KSI crashes(114) were: • Hanover Avenue NW(3) (from Crescent St NW to 3%2 St NW) • Highland Farm Road NW(3) ,, � �`� (from Routt Rd NW to Frontage 1. ::1,:`N i>�`� if^11 . a- i r< f7 *1*l ; 1 .b � ,ci • Loudon Avenue NW(3) (from 1' �itr. !-a AI `-tv'' f� 24thStNWto5thStNW) ‘T • l,1 • Melrose Avenue NW(3) (from " +"'�� 16th St NW to 11th St NW) _ r.i„ � � ' %�`' r Fr — �.a�Jj = e�ti*�1 p: Seriousgniuri, l Fatal and • Staunton Avenue NW(3) (from - '7i 7 - � ' " Seri°usln;urs Crashes Crescent St NW to 5th St NW) +° r r-t6~ i•,',� 11 TYPo..,,.::: * All * 9Y"�"° 6 � . �. • Westside Boulevard NW (3) i°, \ —Suburban:25 and less,Local Character Districts (from dead end to Green ,F° ° ;i _ MI Corn Regional '. Si Industrial N —40 Spring Ave NW;Salem Tpke NW ' Suburbopen ece/Rec SulwrA to Harvest Ln NW) Traadonal The roadways with the highest number Figure 11-Local,15-25 MPH Roadway Map with the HIN and Speeding-Related KSI Crashes of total speeding-related crashes between 2016 and 2023 (541)were: • Staunton Avenue NW (16) (from Crescent St NW to 5th St NW) • Loudon Avenue NW (12) (from 24th St NW to 5th St NW) • Westside Boulevard NW(11) (from dead end to Green Spring Ave NW;Salem Tpke NW to Harvest Ln NW) The roadways with the highest number of speeding-related KSI crashes (49)were: Page 118 196 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN • 13th Street NE (2) (from Baldwin Ave NE to Mason Mill Rd NE) • Albemarle Avenue SE (2) (from 4th St SE to 7th St SE) • Highland Farm Road NW(2) (from Routt Rd NW to Frontage Rd NW) • Loudon Avenue NW(2) (from 24th St NW to 5th St NW) • Melrose Avenue NW(2) (from 16th St NW to 11th St NW) • Staunton Avenue NW(2) (from Crescent St NW to 5th St NW) • Westside Boulevard NW(2) (from dead end to Green Spring Ave NW;Salem Tpke NW to Harvest Ln NW) Of the 49 speeding-related KSI crashes: • 7 (14%)were fatal and 42 (86%)were severe injury crashes. • 15 (31%)were fixed object off the road crashes and 14(29%) were angle crashes. • 45 (92%) had no adverse conditions and 2 (4%)were rainy conditions. • 30(61%)were during daylight and 13 (27%)were during darkness with the road lit. • 45 (92%)were during dry conditions, 2 (4%)were during wet conditions, and 2 (4%) were during icy conditions. • 17(35%)were within an intersection and 14 (29%)were not within an intersection. • 29(59%)were on straight-level roadways and 11 (22%) were on a curve-level roadway. • 16(33%)were under the influence of drugs or alcohol. • 13 (27%)were distracted. • 3 (6%) involved a pedestrian. There are a high number of fixed object off the road crashes(31%) and angle crashes (29%). It is recommended that a speed study and TCD evaluation be performed to adjust speed limits based on roadway conditions and ensure the current TCDs are effective in increasing roadway safety.Additional TCDs may need to be considered and implemented to reduce operating speeds and increase compliance. It is recommended that roadway lighting also be evaluated to ensure visibility during nighttime conditions. It is also recommended that an intersection analysis be performed since 17 of the 49 (35%) crashes were within an intersection.The analysis should evaluate existing TCDs, sight distance, and lighting since 13 of the 49 (27%)of the crashes were during night when the road was lit. Of the 49 speeding-related KSI crashes, 14(29%)occurred on a curved roadway. Because of this, it is recommended that a curve declination study be performed to evaluate the existing TCDs and posted speed limit to identify if additional TCD should be implemented or an advisory speed limit should be posted. There were also a number of risky behaviors other than speeding(32 of 49), such as drug/alcohol usage, distracted driving, and unrestrained occupants that were associated with these speeding-related KSI crashes.Targeted education and enforcement campaigns are also recommended to reduce risky driving behavior and increase road safety. Speed Data The difference between the 85th percentile speed and the speed limit was analyzed across this typology. The roadway with the highest differentials was: Page 119 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1197 • Frontage Road NW: 19.18(weekdays)and 19.93 (weekends) For the difference between the 85th percentile speed and the average speed,the roadways with 50 the highest differentials were: 40 • ° • Berkley Road NE: 6.70(weekdays) and 30 6.35 (weekends) • • Levelton Avenue NW: 6.39(weekdays) f 20 •• ° and 6.61 (weekends) = to Figure 12 shows a box plot illustrating the speed ° differentials within this typology group, which ,o included the differential between the 85th -20 percentile speeds and both the posted speed limits and the average speeds. 30 • Speed Limit vs.85th Percentile: For weekdays Weekday-Speed Limit vs 85th Percentile ■Weekend-Speed Limit vs 85th Percentile (red box),the 85th percentile speeds are generally ■Weekday-Average Speed vs 85th Percentile below the posted speed limits by a few miles per ■Weekend-Average Speed vs 85th Percentile hour.There are notable outliers where the 85th Figure 12-Local,15-25 MPH Roadway Speed Differential Box percentile speeds exceed the posted limits by as Plots much as 40 MPH. A similar trend is observed for weekends(green box),with some negative differentials but with most roadways showing negative differentials. Average Speed vs.85th Percentile: For both weekdays(blue box) and weekends(purple box),the speed differentials between the average and the 85th percentile speeds are only a few miles per hour, but some outlier roadways have differentials of 6-7 MPH, which shows a variation in driver speed choice. The plot highlights variability in speed patterns, with weekdays and weekends showing broadly similar trends but with subtle differences in the range and distribution of differentials. Outliers indicate certain roadways where speed management may be needed—these roadways were listed at the beginning of this section. Page 120 198 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN 4) Collector and Arterial, 25-35 This typology includes collector and arterial roadways with speed limits between 25 mph and ;i,. 35 mph in residential areas (Suburban, Traditional, Regional Commercial, Open ' �, Space/Recreational, and Industrial) pictured to the right in Figure 13.This typology group also includes a local road with a speed limit between 30 and 35 MPH. Although this roadway did not fully align with any of the categories, it was included in this group due to its shared cha Figure 13-Example of a Collector and Arterial,25-35 MPH Roadway racteristics and overall similarity. This encompasses moderate speed roads in Roanoke including Orange Avenue NE, Hershberger Road NW,and Brandon Avenue SW.These roadways typically have low pedestrian presence and are the main connectors between neighborhoods. Crash Data The Collector and Arterial roadways with the highest number of total crashes between 2016 and 2023 (3764) were: • Orange Avenue NE(464) (from Courtland Rd NE to 20th St NE) • Hershberger Road NW(451) I fr (from Peters Creek Rd NW to 11111114- Florist Rd NW) r The roadways with the highest N. , 4. number of KSI crashes (184) were: alleI ��'' Speetling-RHatetl Fatal and Se QE Injury Crashes • Hershberger Road NW (23) 4,Networks (from Peters Creek Rd NW to b y Florist Rd NW) I f l —pology caiierosamtai,zsss °waxer obtnar • Orange Avenue NE (20) (from �' � "° Local D n'r au Cora Regional Courtland Rd NE to 20th St Inds tram NE Open Spa E/Rec NE) + :� Suburb Traditional • Brandon Avenue SW(11) (end - Village Center of city limit to Peters Creek Rd Figure 14-Collector and Arterial,25-35 MPH Roadway Map with the HIN and Speeding- SW; Edgewood St SW to Related KSI Crashes Windsor Ave SW; Colonial Ave SW to Franklin Rd SW) The roadways with the highest number of total speeding-related crashes between 2016 and 2023 (544) were: • Hershberger Road NW (58) (from Peters Creek Rd NW to Florist Rd NW) • Orange Avenue NE (36) (from Courtland Rd NE to 20th St NE) Page 121 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1199 • 10th Street NW (34) (from Shenandoah Ave NW to Williamson Rd NW) The roadways with the highest number of speeding-related KSI crashes(59) were: • Hershberger Road NW(6) (from Peters Creek Rd NW to Florist Rd NW) • 10th Street NW(4) (from Shenandoah Ave NW to Williamson Rd NW) • Orange Avenue NE (4) (from Courtland Rd NE to 20th St NE) Of the 59 speeding-related KSI crashes: • 8 (14%) were fatal and 51 (86%)were severe injury crashes. • 22 (37%)were fixed object off the road crashes and 16(27%)were angle crashes. • 52 (88%) had no adverse conditions and 6 (10%) were rainy conditions. • 31 (53%)were during daylight and 18(31%)were during darkness with the road lit. • 51 (86%)were during dry conditions and 6 (10%) were during wet conditions. • 22 (37%)were within an intersection and 19 (32%) were not within an intersection. • 38 (64%)were on straight-level roadways and 12 (20%) were on a curve-level roadway. • 9 (15%)were under the influence of drugs or alcohol. • 15 (25%)were distracted. • 4 (7%) involved a pedestrian. There are a high number of fixed object off the road crashes (37%) and angle crashes (27%). It is recommended that a speed study and TCD evaluation be performed to adjust speed limits based on roadway conditions and ensure the current TCDs are effective in increasing roadway safety. Additional TCDs may need to be considered and implemented to reduce operating speeds and increase compliance. It is recommended that roadway lighting also be evaluated to ensure visibility during nighttime conditions. It is also recommended that an intersection analysis be performed since 22 of the 59 (37%) crashes were within an intersection.The analysis should evaluate existing TCDs, sight distance, and lighting since 18 of the 59 (31%) of the crashes were during night when the road was lit. Of the 59 speeding-related KSI crashes, 12 (20%)occurred on a curved roadway. Because of this, it is recommended that a curve declination study be performed to evaluate the existing TCDs and posted speed limit to identify if additional TCD should be implemented or an advisory speed limit should be posted. Page 122 200 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN There were also a number of risky behaviors other than speeding(33 of 59), such as drug/alcohol usage, distracted driving, and unrestrained occupants that were associated with these speeding-related KSI crashes.Targeted education and enforcement campaigns are also recommended to reduce risky driving behavior and increase road safety. to Speed Data 35 11111111 The difference between the 85th percentile speed and the speed limit was analyzed across this typology.The roadways with the highest differentials were: S • Welcome Valley Road SW: 14.83 (weekdays) • and 15.04(weekends) • Mt Pleasant Boulevard SE: 13.42 (weekdays) •Wr.,:kd.;r Sp d rrml:v:851h Dorram1. and 13.86(weekends) •1^p•.61.1 Sprn,lIk,1.851h1§•rnn"'P •W...4&v CP.011.RS*Pra.nntilP For the difference between the 85th percentile speed •WnekoM 5(✓CA v58Srh nc cenMc and the average speed,the roadways with the highest Figure 15-Collector and Arterial,25-35 MPH Roadway Speed differentials were: Differential Box Plots • Orange Avenue NE: 7.94 (weekdays) and 7.17 (weekends) • 24th Street NW: 7.60(weekdays) and 7.17 (weekends) • 5th Street NW: 7.54(weekdays) and 6.44(weekends) • Hershberger Road NW:7.43 (weekdays) and 7.39 (weekends) Figure 15 shows a box plot illustrating the speed differentials within this typology group,which included the differential between the 85th percentile speeds and both the posted speed limits and the average speeds. Speed Limit vs.85th Percentile: For weekdays(red box),the 85th percentile speeds are on average more than 5 MPH above the posted speed limits.A similar trend is observed for weekends (green box), with some negative differentials but with most roadways showing positive differentials. Average Speed vs.85th Percentile: For both weekdays (blue box)and weekends(purple box),the speed differentials between the average and the 85th percentile speeds are around 5 MPH, but some outlier roadways have differentials of 6-7 MPH,which shows a variation in driver speed choice. The plot highlights variability in speed patterns,with weekdays and weekends showing broadly similar trends but with subtle differences in the range and distribution of differentials. Outliers indicate certain roadways where speed management may be needed—these roadways were listed at the beginning of this section. Page 123 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1201 5) Collector and Arterial, 40+ This typology includes collector and arterial roadways with speed limits 40 mph and above '" in residential areas (Suburban,Traditional, _, Local Commercial, Regional Commercial, Open Space/Recreational, and Industrial) pictured to the right in Figure 16. In Roanoke,this typo logy is limited to Peters Creek Road NW and SW.These roadways typically have low pedestrian activity and a high volume of Vehicles traveling at high speeds. Figure 16-Example of a Collector and Arterial,40 MPH+Roadway Crash Data Total Collector and Arterial crashes from 2016 and 2023 (377): • Peters Creek Road NW (359) (from Aerial Way Dr SW to Wood Haven Rd NW) • Peters Creek Road SW (18) (from Brandon Ave SW to Aerial Way Dr SW) Of the 12 KSI crashes, 11 were on Peters Creek Road NW, which had 35 speeding related crashes,4 of which were KSI. Of the 5 speeding-related KSI crashes: • 0 (0%)were fatal and 5 (100%) . were severe injury crashes. • • 4 (80%)were fixed object off the road crashes and 1 (20%) was angle crash. • 5 (100%) had no adverse . conditions. 4. � It* • 2 (40%)were during darkness s trig-Rela>;ed Fatal and F ,y Senous Injury Crashes with the road lit, 2 (40%)were 111 HIN Networksduring daylight, and 1 (20%) Character Districts was during darkness with the ,a Com Cowl Cora Regional road unlit. Downwwn Industrial • 5 (100%) were during dry ;'Open Space/Rec Suburb conditions. Tradm°nal Village Center • 2 (40%)were on a main-line Figure 17-Map of Collector and Arterial,40 MPH+Roadways with the HIN Network and roadway and 2 (40%)were Speeding-Related KSI Crashes within an intersection. • 5 (100%)were on straight-level roadways. • 4 (80%)were under the influence of drugs or alcohol. • 0 (0%)were distracted. • 0 (0%) involved a pedestrian. Page 124 202 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN Of the five speeding-related KSI crashes,four(80%) were fixed object off the road collisions and one (20%) was an angle crash. It is recommended that a speed study be performed and the existing TCDs be evaluated for effectiveness.Additional TCDs should be implemented if there is little compliance with the posted speed limit. The speed limit should also be evaluated to ensure it is appropriate for the roadway environment and all road users. Of the five speeding-related KSI crashes,three (60%)were during night,two were with the road lit and one was with the road unlit. It is recommended that roadway lighting also be evaluated to ensure visibility during nighttime conditions. There were also risky behaviors other than speeding(4 of 5), such as drug/alcohol usage and unrestrained occupants,that were associated with these speeding-related KSI crashes.Targeted education and enforcement campaigns are also recommended to reduce risky driving behavior and increase road safety. Speed Data The difference between the 85th percentile speed and the speed limit was analyzed across this typology. The roadways with the highest differentials were: • Peters Creek Road NW: 0.39 (weekdays)and 1.47 (weekends) • Peters Creek Road SW:-0.43 (weekdays) and 0.80 (weekends) For the difference between the 85th percentile speed and the average speed,the roadways with the highest differentials were: • Peters Creek Road SW: 6.94 (weekdays) and 6.76 (weekends) • Peters Creek Road NW: 6.29 (weekdays) and 6.18 (weekends) Since there are only two roadways in this typology group, no box plot was created. Page 125 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1203 Chapter 4: Countermeasure Toolbox This section contains a toolbox of countermeasures matched to the various roadway types in the previous section. Note: ✓Countermeasure is applicable for this location/speed-safety concern; •Countermeasure is sometimes applicable and should be considered on a case-by-case basis Roadway Typologies Strategy Countermeasure Cost 1 2 3 4 5 Advance Curve Warning • • • V V Low Signs/Advisory Speeds Signal Backplates with ✓ V V V V Low Retroreflective Borders Bicycle Lane/Bicycle ✓ V V V • Low Pavement Markings Crosswalk Enhancement / V V ✓ ✓ Low-Medium Retroreflectivity Strips on ✓ V V V V Low Posts Flashing LED Sign Border— • • ✓ Moderate Curve Warnings Alert Driver to Gateway Treatment • • • • • Vary Widely Condition Landscaping Requiring Gateway Treatment • • • • • Vary Widely Reduced Speed Signing In-Street Pedestrian V V V • • Low(<$50o each) Crossing Sign Speed Activated Feedback ✓ ✓ V ✓ • $5 per If+$30o per bike Sign emblem Streetprint Crosswalks ✓ • ✓ • Low $23.,000-$57,680(Avg Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons • • $57 680) Rectangular Rapid Flashing ✓ ✓ V V • $4,5oo-$5z,000 Beacons Transverse rumble strips ✓ Low-Medium Vertical Delineators • • • • • Low Offset Speed Table V • V • Medium Speed Cushion ✓ • ✓ • Low Speed Table/Raised V • V • Medium Create Driver Crosswalk Discomfort Intersection/Median Barrier • • • $1,5oo-$20,000 Above Target (Arterial Only) Speed Mini roundabout V • V • High,up to$25o,000 Raised Intersection V • V • High,$25,000-$60,000 Raised Median Island ✓ V V ✓ ✓ Medium,$1,5oo-sio,000 Realigned Intersections V • V • $15,000-$60,000 Roundabout • • ✓ High Page 126 204 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN Tighten Corner Radius at Intersections(Tee-up ✓ V V V ✓ Low Intersection/Angle of Intersection) Safer Speed Appropriate Speed Limits V V ✓ V V Low Limits for all Road Users Chicanes V • V • $8,000 to$25,000(ITE in 2017 dollars) Corner Extensions/Bulb-outs ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ $7,000-$io,000 Self-Enforcing Neckdowns/Choker ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ V $4,000 Roadway Lateral Shift ✓ V V V • $8,000-$25,000 Element Reduce Width of Travel Lane ✓ ✓ V ✓ ✓ Low Lane Reconfiguration V V V V V Low-Medium Right-in,Right-out • • • • • $3,500-$7,500 Street Trees and ✓ V ✓ V V Landscaping Medium-High Signs:Notification of Additional Fines for V V V V V Low Speeding Speed Safety Cameras/ Enforcement Automated Speed V ✓ V • Low,Vision Zero Enforcement Funding Source Speed Feedback V V V V V Signs/Radar Trailer $5,000 $i2,000 Funding Below are potential funding sources for the proposed safety projects identified in this plan. 6) Virginia Highway Safety Improvement Program (VHSIP)19: Administered by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT),VHSIP provides federal and state funds for projects aimed at reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries. Eligible projects include infrastructure improvements,traffic calming measures, and pedestrian safety enhancements. 7) Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program20: Established under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,SS4A offers$5 billion over five years to support local initiatives that prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. Roanoke can apply for these grants to fund comprehensive safety action plans and implement safety improvements. 8) Highway Safety Grants Program by NHTSA21:The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration provides grants to states for effective highway safety programs.These funds can support various initiatives, including speed management, impaired driving prevention, and pedestrian safety projects. 9) VDOT's SMART SCALE Program22:This program allocates state funding for transportation projects based on factors like safety, congestion reduction, and accessibility. Roanoke can submit projects for consideration to receive funding for roadway safety improvements. 10) Local Funding and Partnerships: Roanoke can leverage local funds, including municipal budgets and bonds,to finance safety projects. Collaborations with regional planning organizations, non-profits, and 19 https://www.vdot.virginia.gov/doing-business/technical-guidance-and-support/traffic-operations/vhsip/ 20 https://www.vaco.org/county-connections/safe-streets-and-roads-for-all-grant-program-available-now/ 21 https://www.nhtsa.gov/highway-safety-grants-program 22 https://www.roanokecountyva.gov/3029/Carson-Road-Safety-Improvements-Study Page 127 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1205 private sector partners can also provide additional resources and support for implementing safety countermeasures. 11) Coordinate with Roadway Maintenance Projects: Integrating roadway safety countermeasures into routine maintenance projects is an efficient and cost-effective strategy. By aligning new safety installations with scheduled maintenance—such as re-striping, updating signage, or resurfacing— Roanoke can reduce implementation costs and streamline improvements. Instead of initiating standalone projects,which may require additional planning and funding, safety measures like enhanced pavement markings, speed reduction treatments, or pedestrian crossings can be incorporated when lines are repainted or signs are replaced.This approach maximizes resource use and ensures that safety upgrades are implemented more swiftly across the city, contributing to the overall goal of reducing traffic incidents and enhancing road safety. 12) Automated School Zone Speed Enforcement: Richmond Virginia's Automated Speed Enforcement Program directs funds collected to their Vision Zero Action Fund, enabling the implementation of more traffic calming, speed management and safety improving countermeasures. By utilizing these funding avenues, Roanoke can effectively implement roadway safety countermeasures to enhance the well-being of all road users. Page 128 206 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN Chapter 5: Summary of Key Speed-Related Safety Concerns by Typology The last chapter defined each of the typologies and went into detail on what the specific crash and speed related data showed.This chapter is a summary of that information with specific recommendations based on the identified speed related safety concerns. 1) Downtown: Local, 25 MPH Summary of Speed Related Safety Concerns: o High pedestrian activity, especially in intersections. o Frequent angle and intersection-related crashes(75%within intersections). o Notable risky behaviors: drug/alcohol use and distraction. o Speed differential outliers exceed posted limits by significant margins. Corridors within Typology with the most Speeding-Related KSI Crashes or Highest Speed Differentials • Melrose Avenue NW(from Forest Park Blvd NW to 16th St NW—1.5 miles): o 2 Speeding-Related KSI Crashes o Speed Limit vs 85th Percentile Speed: 9.57 MPH (weekdays) and 10.16 MPH (weekends) • Burrell Street NW(from Douglass Ave NW to Orange Ave NW—0.075 miles) o 2 Speeding-Related KSI Crashes • Luck Avenue SE (from Jefferson St SE to Church Ave SE—0.081 miles): o Average Speed vs 85th Percentile Speed:9.58(weekdays)and 8.47 (weekends) Downtown:Local, 25 MPH Roadway Countermeasure Recommendations Countermeasures from Chapter 4 for this typology are listed below by the identified speed-related safety concerns they address: High pedestrian activity,especially in intersections: • Crosswalk Enhancements o Includes raised crosswalks, high-visibility markings, and signalized pedestrian crossings to improve visibility and safety. • In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs o Draw driver attention to pedestrian crossings in high-activity areas. • Corner Extensions/Bulb-Outs o Shorten crossing distances for pedestrians and improve their visibility to drivers. • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons(RRFBs) o Add visibility to pedestrian crossings in areas with moderate pedestrian activity and speeding concerns. Frequent angle and intersection-related crashes(75%within intersections): • Raised Intersections o Slow vehicles at intersections and improve pedestrian safety. • Tighten Corner Radii o Reduces vehicle speeds during turns and improves pedestrian safety. • Mini Roundabouts o Replace traditional intersections to reduce conflict points and angle crashes. Page 129 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1207 • Appropriate Traffic Control Devices(TCDs) o Improve visibility and compliance at intersections with updated signage and signals. • Lane Reconfiguration o Adjust lane widths and alignments to manage speeds and improve turning movements. • Signal Backplates with Retroreflective Borders o Increase signal visibility to drivers, especially in high-conflict areas. Notable risky behaviors: drug/alcohol use and distraction: • Speed Feedback Signs/Radar Trailers o Alert distracted or impaired drivers to their speed and encourage compliance. • Targeted Education and Enforcement Campaigns o Focus on reducing risky behaviors, including impaired and distracted driving, through public education. • Gateway Treatments(Signing and Landscaping) o Indicate entry into high-risk zones and encourage drivers to reduce speeds and increase focus. • High-Visibility Enforcement(HVE) o Combine targeted campaigns with visible law enforcement presence. Speed differential outliers exceed posted limits by significant margins: • Horizontal Speed Control Elements(Chicanes and Lateral Shifts) o Force vehicles to maneuver and slow down, reducing excessive speed. • Lane Reconfiguration (Road Diets) o Add a turn lane, and optimize lane widths to improve to all-mode safety, calm traffic and discourage speeding. • Vertical Speed Control Elements (Speed Tables and Cushions) o Physically reduce speeds, especially in urban and transitional areas. • Appropriate Speed Limits for All Road Users o Reevaluate speed limits to ensure they align with the roadway context and user needs. 2) Downtown: Collector & Arterial, 25-35 MPH Summary of Speed-Related Safety Concerns • High pedestrian activity combined with fast-moving vehicles. • High volume of fixed-object off-road crashes(42%) and nighttime incidents(56%during darkness). • Risky behaviors: drug/alcohol use (31%) and distraction (36%). • Speeding contributes significantly to crashes, with frequent non-compliance of speed limits. Corridors Within Typology with the Most Speeding-Related KSI Crashes or Highest Speed Differentials • Williamson Road NW (from Hildebrand Rd NW to Liberty Rd NE—1.76 miles): o 9 Speeding-Related KSI Crashes. Page 130 208 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN • Orange Avenue NE(from 20th St NE to Granby St Ne&from Seibel Dr NE to End—3.422 miles) O 7 Speeding-Related KSI Crashes. o Speed Limit vs 85th Percentile Speed: 7.94 MPH (weekdays) • Melrose Avenue NW(from 315t St NW to Ward St NW—3.85 miles) O 6 Speeding-Related KSI Crashes. • Franklin Road SW(from Frontage Rd SW to Avenham Ave SW&from Beechwood Dr SW to McClanahan St SW&from King George Ave SW to Jefferson St SE—4.36 miles) o Speed Limit vs 85th Percentile Speed: 11.90 MPH (weekdays) and 12.76 (weekends). • Liberty Road NW(from Forest Hill Ave NE to near Lukens St NE—0.216 miles) o Speed Limit vs 85th Percentile Speed: 11.73 MPH (weekdays)and 12.00 (weekends). Recommendations Countermeasures from Chapter 4 are listed below by the identified speed-related safety concerns they address: High pedestrian activity,especially in intersections: • Crosswalk Enhancements(high-visibility markings). • In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs for driver awareness. • Corner Extensions/Bulb-Outs to shorten crossing distances. • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons(RRFBs)to improve visibility and controlled crossings. Fixed-object and nighttime crashes: • Appropriate Traffic Control Devices(TCDs)to improve compliance. • Lane Reconfiguration to manage speeds and optimize turning movements. • Evaluate and enhance roadway lighting to ensure visibility at night. Risky behaviors: • Speed Feedback Signs/Radar Trailers to alert and educate drivers. • Targeted Education and Enforcement Campaigns focusing on drug/alcohol use and distraction. • High-Visibility Enforcement(HVE)for deterrence. Speed differential outliers: • Speed Feedback Signs • Lateral Shifts to reduce excessive speeds. • Lane Reconfiguration (Road Diets)to narrow lanes and discourage speeding. 3) Local, 15-25 MPH Summary of Speed-Related Safety Concerns • High number of fixed-object(31%) and angle crashes (29%). • Significant intersection-related crashes(35%) and nighttime crashes(27%). • Risky behaviors: drug/alcohol use (33%) and distraction (27%). Page 131 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1209 Corridors Within Typology with the Most Speeding-Related KSI Crashes or Highest Speed Differentials • Staunton Avenue NW(from Crescent St NW to near 8th St NW—1.74 miles) 0 2 Speeding-Related KSI Crashes. Recommendations Intersection and nighttime crashes: • Raised Intersections. • Intersection Analysis to improve TCDs and sight distances. • Enhance roadway lighting. Risky behaviors: • Speed Feedback Signs. • Targeted Education Campaigns for drug/alcohol use and distraction. Speed differential outliers: • Chicanes and Lateral Shifts. • Curve Delineation Studies for advisory speed limits on curves. 4) Collector & Arterial, 25-35 MPH Summary of Speed-Related Safety Concerns • High fixed-object crashes(37%)and intersection-related crashes(37%). • Risky behaviors: drug/alcohol use (15%) and distraction (25%). • Speed differentials exceeding posted limits. Corridors Within Typology with the Most Speeding-Related KS1 Crashes or Highest Speed Differentials • Hershberger Road NW(from Peters Creek Rd NW to Florist Rd NW—5.56 miles) O 6 Speeding-Related KSI Crashes. o Average Speed vs 85th Percentile Speed:7.43 MPH (weekdays) and 7.39 (weekends). • Orange Avenue NE (from Gainsboro Rd NW to 20th St NE &from Granby St NE to Blue Hills Village Dr NE—3.48 miles) O 4 Speeding-Related KSI Crashes. o Average Speed vs 85th Percentile Speed: 7.94 MPH (weekdays) and 7.17(weekends). Recommendations Fixed-object and intersection crashes: • Evaluate TCDs and implement updates. • Curve Delineation Studies for advisory speed limits. • On a case-by-case basis: Mini Roundabouts or Raised Intersections. • Ensure unobstructed views around curves by trimming overgrown vegetation Risky behaviors: • Speed Feedback Signs. Page 132 210 I ROANOKE SPEED MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN • Gateway Treatments and Education Campaigns. Speed differential outliers: • Lane Reconfiguration and Road Diets. • On a case-by-case basis: Vertical Speed Control Elements. 5) Collector & Arterial, 40+ MPH Summary of Speed-Related Safety Concerns • High speeds with limited pedestrian involvement but significant off-road crashes(80%). • Frequent crashes during nighttime conditions(60%)with inadequate lighting. • Speeding-related risky behaviors: drug/alcohol use (80%). Corridors Within Typology with the Most Speeding-Related KSI Crashes or Highest Speed Differentials • Peters Creek Road NW(from Wood Haven Rd NW to near Thirlane Rd NW&from Melrose Ave NW to Aerial Way Dr SW—5.69 miles) 0 4 Speeding-Related KSI Crashes. Recommendations Fixed-object and nighttime crashes: • Evaluate and enhance roadway lighting, especially in unlit sections. • Speed Feedback Signs for immediate driver feedback. Speeding-related risky behaviors: • Targeted Education Campaigns addressing impaired driving. • High-Visibility Enforcement(HVE). • Adjust TCDs for better compliance with speed limits. Speed differential outliers: • Evaluate speed limits to align with the roadway environment. Each typology's safety concerns point to the need for a mix of enforcement, engineering improvements, and education initiatives tailored to roadway characteristics and user behavior. Page 133 ROANOKE VISION ZERO SAFETY ACTION PLAN 1211 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. VISION ZEN. ROANOKE AFFIDAVIT REQUEST: The Roanoke City Council is pursuing three Council Member Initiatives, including review of: • The 2024 Zoning Amendments,which primarily relate to residential zoning • A new Vape and Tobacco Establishment ordinance • The Evans Spring Plan • Following this review,some of the proposed amendments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979), as amended, would reduce the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on residentially zoned property,specifically in the R-12, R-5, R-3, RM-1, and RM-2 Residential Districts. Depending on the zoning district, the proposed amendments include, but may not be limited to: increasing the minimum lot area required for each dwelling unit, reducing the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on a lot, and/or establishing a maximum lot area. As a result of potential reductions in allowable dwelling unit density, all property owners of residentially zoned property in City of Roanoke are receiving this letter, regardless of whether their property is affected. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA } )TO-WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE } The affiant, Emily G.Clark,first being duly sworn,states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalff of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke,she has sent by first-class mail this tik6V •1i *k"—, 2026, notices of a public hearing to be held on this V1 L 1 ' i ,2026, on the request captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels as set out on the attached. Emily G. CI SUBSCIIIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke,Virginia,this 2 iJ day of APR( — , 2026. ySTE VE f-- ;N i M , 3 � �Conrniss� , ;i 's.. f2dZ It_y_ie„,..„.„ Notary Public id itIV CARDINAL NEWS See Proof on Next Page AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Cardinal News P.O. Box 4455, Roanoke,VA 24015 (540) 467-2189 State of Florida, County of Orange, ss: I, Edmar Corachia, of lawful age, being duly sworn upon oath depose and say that I am an agent of Column Software, PBC, duly appointed and authorized agent of the Publisher of Cardinal News, a publication that is a "legal newspaper"as that term is defined in 8.01-324 of the Code of Virginia, and authorized as such by Order of the Circuit Court, that the full text of the attached notice was published in said publication and also at www.publicnoticevirginia.com, which is a searchable statewide repository of such notices, on the following dates. Publication Dates: • Mar 30, 2026 • Apr 6, 2026 Notice ID: yZUfouwvfrDiOswi4RO4 Notice Name: Public Hearing Notice Publication Fee: $235.00 EdmAr &ormchiA Agent * ,,,,,� \\��t\ p6,i JESSICA GORDON-THOMPSON o_;'�' �� Notary Public-State of Florida VERIFICATION =•;. ll—„lll _ Commission u HH301656 ,a. � �...�... � Expires on August 17,2026 State of Florida County of Orange Signed or attested before me on this: 04/08/2026 Notary Public Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof. Public Hearing Notice I Page 1 of 4 Public Hearing Notice PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City Planning Commission for the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing in the City Council Chamber,Fourth Floor,Room 450,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Virginia,24011,on April 13,2026,at 1:30 pm,or as soon as the matter may be heard,to consider and to provide the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council with respect to p roposed amendments to Chapter 36.2,Zoning,of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979),as amended,to consider(1)proposed zoning amendments related to the Council Member Initiatives to evaluate various aspects of the zoning code,including vape shop reg- ulations,the September 16,2024 housing ordinance,and other identified community concerns,and(2)proposed amendments to City Plan 2040,the City's Comprehensive Plan,by adopting amendments to the Evans Spring Master Plans,all as further described below. (1)The proposed Zoning Amendments to Chapter 36.2.Zoning,of the Code of.the City of Roanoke(1979).as amended,are intended to facilitate context sensitive housing development;to promote community health and wellness;to encourage purposeful land use to make changes to the use tables for multiple purpose,industrial,and planned unit development districts;and to make changes to clarify and correct elements of the zoning code,such amendments being for the public purposes of promoting public health,public safety,-and good zoning practice.Such amendments do not involve a change in the zoning map classification of any parcels of land.The Planning Commission will consider these Zoning Amendments: 1.Section 36.2-205,Dimensional regulations,changes to lot frontage and maximum front yard requirements;addition of section de- scription for inf ill development; 2.Section 36.2.312,Dimensional regulations for residential districts,changes to the dimensional regulations for residential districts with some changes resulting in a reduction of allowable density in certain districts; 3.Section 36.2-315,.Use table for multiple purpose districts,changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the mul- tiple purpose districts; 4.Section 36.2-322„Use table for industrial districts,changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the industrial districts; 5.Section 36.2-327,Use table for planned unit development districts,changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the planned unit development districts; 6.Section 36.2-403,Accessory uses and structures,addition of supplemental regulations for portable storage containers; 7.Section 36.2-405,Bed and breakfast,homestay,and short-term rental establishments,changes to standards for homestay estab- lishments; 8.Section 36.2-407:3,Data Center,addition of supplemental regulations for data centers; 9.Section 36.2-409.1,Dwellings,addition of parking and design standards for specific dwelling types; 10.Section 36.2-426.1,Retail Sales of Vape and Tobacco Establishments,addition of supplemental regulations for vape and tobacco establishments; 11.Section 36.2-429,Temporary uses,changes to zoning districts for produce stands; 12.Section 36.2-540,Zoning amendments,changes to staff roles for zoning amendment procedure; 13.Section 36.2-625,Outdoor lighting standards,changes to wording for pole-mounted lighting; 14.Section 36.2-644,Overall tree canopy requirements,changes to internal City Code references; 15.Section 36.2-646,Facade planting,changes to building conditions where facade plantings are required; 16.Appendix A,Definitions,additions,removal,and changes to definitions; 17.Appendix B,Submittal Requirements,changes to Basic Development Plan submission requirements; On February 2,2026,the City Council adopted a Resolution(Resolution No.43349-020226)initiating the evaluation of various aspects of the Zoning Code,including vape shop regulations,the September 16,2024 housing ordinance,and other identified community con- cerns to provide additional opportunities for further public comment,Planning Commission review,and City Council review. The Zoning Amendments that will be considered: 1.Reduce the density of dwelling units permitted in certain residential zoning districts.More specifically,some of the proposed amend- ments to Chapter 36.2,Zoning,of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979),as amended,would reduce the maximum number of dwell- Public Hearing Notice I Page 2 of 4 ing units allowed on residentially zoned property,specifically in the R-12,R-5,R-3,RM-1,and RM-2 Residential Districts.Geograph- ically,these residential districts are located throughout the City and cover the bulk of the City's land area and almost all of Roanoke's housing supply. The purposes of the R-12,R-5,R-3,and RM-1 districts are to provide a range of housing options and to provide opportunities for compatible home-based entrepreneurship.Dimensional and supplemental regulations implement standards that control building form building placement and other characteristics of development.These districts cover the majority of the City's land area and contain most of Roanoke:s housing supply.The purpose of the RM-2 district is to provide for all housing types with an emphasis on townhouses, cottage courts,and apartment buildings.This district is generally mapped in areas near or adjacent to neighborhood and other com- mercial centers,but also may be applied to existing apartment buildings in neighborhood contexts.Depending on the zoning district, the proposed amendments include,but may not be limited to:increasing the minimum lot area required for each dwelling unit,reducing the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on a lot.and/or establishing a maximum lot area.The following chart describes the changes in more detail t Zoning District RA R-12 R-7 R-5 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RMF Minimum lot area for each 43,560 2,500 2,000 '4:500 44O3 1,500 3;.00 1,000 dwelling(sq ft) 44 000" 2,000 '1.500 1.500 Minimum lot-area for each 1,500 1,000 1,000 group living adult resident or room(sq ft) Corner lot maximum number of 1 3 4 §, No No dwellings 4 4 fi, limit limit Interior or through lot maximum 1 1 2 3 3. 4. No No number of dwellings 2' 2 .3 limit limit Minimum area of a lot 43,560 8,000 15,500 4,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 15,000 Maximum area of lot I 115.000 24.000 Note:Text to be removed is id red..h3.,t1.,d,gh,end new proposed text is in red undertiire, Fora map of the residentially zoned property subject to the changes,please visit www.roanokeva.gov/crniMaap 2.Implement priorities of the City Plan 2040 related to housing,neighborhood choice,complete neighborhoods,equity,context-sensi- tive design,health,wellness,and purposeful land use; 3.Address the need for a broad range of housing types available; 4.Add use classification and supplemental regulations for vape and tobacco establishments,data centers,data processing facilities, and inpatient mental health and substance abuse clinics; 5.Limit districts where self-storage uses are permitted to allow more efficient use of the City's limited developable land area; 6.Clarify and correct elements of the zoning code that are confusing,hard to read,or difficult to enforce; 7.Change where certain uses are permitted,not permitted,or require a special exception in the following use categories:Commercial; Industrial;Assembly and Entertainment;Public,Institutional,and Community Facilities;Warehousing and Distribution. (2)A request by the City of Roanoke to consider adopting amendments to Evans Spring Master Plan adopted as a part of City Plan 2040,the City's comprehensive plan.Evans Spring Master Plan is designed to provide a vision that addresses neighborhood needs, environmental conditions,market conditions,economic impacts,and infrastructure constraints. A physical copy of the proposed amendments is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk,Suite 456,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Virginia,24011.Citizens may also access the amendments,along with explana- tory material,at http://rodnokeva.gov/cmi.The ordinance ordaining,amending,and/or adopting the amendments described above shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council for the City of Roanoke. All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the City Planning Commission at the public hearing.Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Planning Commission by mail to 215 Church Avenue SW,Room 166,Roanoke,VA 24011,or by email to planningcommisslon«roanokeva.gov Emily G.Clark,Secretary,City Planning Commission The City of Roanoke will make reasonable accommodations for any person with a disability to participate in the hearing.Please contact the City Clerk's Office,(540)853-2541,by noon,April 10,2026,to request accommodations. The City of Roanoke provides interpretation at no cost for all public meetings,upon request.If you would like to request an interpreter, please let us know at least 24 hours in advance by calling(540)853-1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke proporciona interpretacion sin cdsto por todas citas pdblicas,previa solicitud.Si ustedidesea solicitor un inter- prate,haganoslo saber con al menos 24 horas de antelacion por flamer(540)853-1283. Jiji la Roarioke linatoa huduma ya ukalimani bila malipo katika mikutano yote ya umma,inapoombwa.lwapo ungependa kuomba mka- limani;tafadhali tujulishe angalau saa 24 kabla kwa kupiga simu(540)853-1283. Public Hearing Notice I Page 3 of 4 24 8 53-1283(540) Public Hearing Notice I Page 4 of 4 See Proof on Next Page AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Roanoke Rambler PO Box 323,Vinton,VA 24179 (540)307-1475 State of Florida, County of Orange, ss: I, Edmar Corachia, an authorized agent of Column Software, PBC,which is an authorized agent of the Publisher of the Roanoke Rambler, a publication that is a"legal newspaper"as that term is defined in 8.01-324 of the Code of Virginia, and authorized as such by Order of the Circuit Court,that the full text of the attached notice was published in said publication and also at www.publicnoticevirginia.com,which is a searchable statewide repository of such notices, on the following dates: Publication Dates: • Mar 30, 2026 • Apr 6,2026. Notice ID: IHtUUIdgOOKjYsGILnFX Notice Name: Rambler Legal Ad-Apr 2026-PC Vision Zero Publication Fee: $110.00 Ecinicir GorAcliio Agent \\�Qo10101Q0e JESSICA GORDON-THOMPSON AP,‘.(..P`B'��i Notary Public-State of Florida VERIFICATION A IIIIII = Commission#HH301656 Expires on August 17,2026 State of Florida 4 County of Orange Signed or attested before me on this:04/08/2026 Notary Public Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof. • Rambler Legal Ad-Apr 2026- PC Vision Zero I Page 1 of 2 PUBLIC HEARLNG NOTICE The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a pub- lic hearing on Monday,April 13,2026,at 1:30 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,in the City Council Cham- ber,Fourth Floor,Room 450,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Build- ing,215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Virginia,to consider the following request: A request by the City of Roanoke to consider and adopt up- dates to the Complete Streets Policy and adopt the Safety Ac- tion Plan/Speed Management Action Plan as a part of City Plan 2040, the City's comprehensive plan adopted in 2020. The Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan is designed to enhance roadway safety,aiming to eliminate fa- talities and serious injuries by 2040 and cut them by 25%by 2030.This plan will focus on all users,including pedestrians, bicyclists,public transit users, motorists, micromobility us- ers,and commercial vehicle drivers. • Physical copies of this plan are available for public inspection in the Planning,Building.&Development Department,First Floor, Room 170,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Av- enue SW, Roanoke,Virginia, 24011. Citizens may also access the plan at www.roanokeva.gov/visiouzero.All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the Planning Commission at the public hearing.Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Planning Commission by mail to 215 Church Avenue SW Room 170, Roanoke, VA, 24011, or by email to planningcomumissionvroanokeva.gov. Emily G.Clark Secretary,City Planning Commission City Council will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid matter on Monday.April 20,2026,at 7:00 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber,Fourth Floor, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Virginia.All persons wishing to address City Council may sigh-up online at www.roanokeva.gov/ council.In order to sign up,the form to speak before City Coun- cil.may be accessed under the tab"Sign Up Form to Speak Be- fore Council"on the left of the screen.For further information, you may contact the Office of the City Clerk at(540)853-2541. Cecelia F.McCoy,CMC,City Clerk The City of Roanoke will make reasonable accommodations for any person with a disability to participate in the hearing.Please contact the City Clerk's Office, (540)853-2541,by noon,April 10,2026,to request accommodations. The City of Roanoke provides interpretation at no cost for all public meetings,upon request. If you would like to request an interpreter,please let us know at least 24 hours in advance by calling(540)853-1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke proporciona interpretacion sin costo por todas citas pfublicas,previa solicitud. Si usted desea solicitar un interprete,haganoslo saber con al menos 24 horas de antelacion por llamar(540)853-1283. Jiji la Roanoke linatoa huduma ya ukalimani bila inalipo katika uukutano yote ya uanna,inapoombwa.Iwapo ungependa kuom- ba nnkalimani,tafadhali tujulishe angalan saa 24 kabla kwa kupi- ga simu(540)853-1283. Published on Roanoke Rambler (http://www.roanokerambler. con!):March 30;April 6.2026 Rambler Legal Ad-Apr 2026- PC Vision Zero I Page 2 of 2 & CARDINAL NEWS See Proof on Next Page AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Cardinal News P.O. Box 4455, Roanoke,VA 24015 (540) 467-2189 State of Florida, County of Broward, ss: I, Anjana Bhadoriya, of lawful age, being duly sworn upon oath depose and say that I am an agent of Column Software, PBC, duly appointed and authorized agent of the Publisher of Cardinal News, a publication that is a "legal newspaper"as that term is defined in 8.01-324 of the Code of Virginia, and authorized as such by Order of the Circuit Court, that the full text of the attached notice was published in said publication and also at www.publicnoticevirginia.com, which is a searchable statewide repository of such notices, on the following dates. Publication Dates: • Mar 30, 2026 • Apr 6, 2026 Notice ID: 3xOSP8AjGFm12Au6VHNC Notice Name: Legal Ad -April 2026 -Vision Zero PC Only Publication Fee: $235.00 A.ya,a sh.dorye Agent ��,�muoo�,,,o�, \\��� // SHERI SMITH o,- Notary Public-State of Florida Wiz: /_\ VERIFICATION !N mill Commission#HH269363 i _ .. �� Expires on May 31,-2026 State of Florida �i,,F�o1j1jj1op 1�\\\��„�� County of Broward Signed or attested before me on this: 04/07/2026 12ntitk Notary Public Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof. Legal Ad -April 2026 -Vision Zero PC Only I Page 1 of 2 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, April 13,2026,at 1:30 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,in the City Council Chamber,Fourth Floor,Room 450,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Virginia,to consider the following request A request by the City of Roanoke to consider and adopt updates to the Complete Streets Policy and adopt the Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan as a part of City Plan 2040,the City's comprehensive plan adopted in 2020.The Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan is designed to enhance roadway safe- ty,aiming to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries by 2040 and cut them by 25% by 2030.This plan will focus on all users,including pedestrians,bicyclists,public transit users,motorists,micromobility users,and commercial vehicle drivers. Physical copies of this plan are available for public inspection in the Planning,Building, &Development Department.First Floor,Room 170,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Virginia,24011.Citizens may also access the plan at www.roanokeva.gov/visionzero.All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the Planning Commission at the public hearing.Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Planning Commission by mail to 215 Church Avenue SW,Room 170,Roanoke,VA,24011,or by email to planningcommission@roanokeva.gov. Emily G.Clark,Secretary,City Planning Commission City Council will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid matter on Monday,April 20, 2026,at 7:00 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,in the City Council Chamber,Fourth Floor,Room 450,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Av- enue SW,Roanoke,Virginia.All persons wishing to address City Council may sign-up online at www.roanokeva.gov/council.In order to sign up,the form to speak before City Council may be accessed under the tab'Sign Up Form to Speak Before Council"on the left of the screen.For further information,you may contact the Office of the City Clerk at (540)853-2541. Cecelia F.McCoy,CMC,City Clerk The City of Roanoke will make reasonable accommodations for any person with a dis- ability to participate in the hearing.Please contact the City Clerk's Office,(540)853-2541, by noon,April 10,2026,to request accommodations. The City of Roanoke provides interpretation at no cost for all public meetings,upon re- quest.If you would like to request an interpreter,please let us know at least 24 hours in advance by calling(540)853-1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke proporclona interpretacion sin costo por todas citas publicas, previa solicitud.Si usted desea solicitar un interprete,haganoslo saber con al menos 24 horns de antelacion por Ilamar(540)853-1283. Jiji la Roanoke linatoa huduma ya ukalimani bile malipo katika mikutano vote ya umma, inapoombwa.Iwapo ungependa kuomba mkalimani,tafadhali tujulishe angalau saa 24 kabla lova kupiga slmu(540)853-1283. Legal Ad -April 2026 -Vision Zero PC Only I Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City Planning Commission for the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing in the City Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, Room 450,Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, 24011, on April 13, 2026, at 1:30 pm, or as soon as the matter may be heard, to consider and to provide the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council with respect to proposed amendments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to consider(1) proposed zoning amendments related to the Council Member Initiatives to evaluate various aspects of the zoning code, including vape shop regulations, the September 16, 2024 housing ordinance, and other identified community concerns, and (2)proposed amendments to City Plan 2040, the City's Comprehensive Plan, by adopting amendments to the Evans Spring Master Plans, all as further described below. (1) The proposed Zoning Amendments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979), as amended, are intended to facilitate context sensitive housing development; to promote community health and wellness; to encourage purposeful land use to make changes to the use tables for multiple purpose, industrial, and planned unit development districts; and to make changes to clarify and correct elements of the zoning code, such amendments being for the public purposes of promoting public health, public safety, and good zoning practice. Such amendments do not involve a change in the zoning map classification of any parcels of land. The Planning Commission will consider these Zoning Amendments: 1. Section 36.2-205, Dimensional regulations, changes to lot frontage and maximum front yard requirements; addition of section description for infill development; 2. Section 36.2-312, Dimensional regulations for residential districts, changes to the dimensional regulations for residential districts with some changes resulting in a reduction of allowable density in certain districts; 3. Section 36.2-315, Use table for multiple purpose districts, changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the multiple purpose districts; 4. Section 36.2-322, Use table for industrial districts, changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the industrial districts; 5. Section 36.2-327, Use table for planned unit development districts, changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the planned unit development districts; 6. Section 36.2-403, Accessory uses and structures, addition of supplemental regulations for portable storage containers; 7. Section 36.2-405, Bed and breakfast, homestay, and short-term rental establishments, changes to standards for homestay establishments; 7965\0047\13245867v1 8. Section 36.2-407.3, Data Center, addition of supplemental regulations for data centers; 9. Section 36.2-409.1, Dwellings, addition of parking and design standards for specific dwelling types; 10. Section 36.2-426.1, Retail Sales of Vape and Tobacco Establishments, addition of supplemental regulations for vape and tobacco establishments; 11. Section 36.2-429, Temporary uses, changes to zoning districts for produce stands; 12. Section 36.2-540, Zoning amendments, changes to staff roles for zoning amendment procedure; 13. Section 36.2-625, Outdoor lighting standards, changes to wording for pole-mounted lighting; 14. Section 36.2-644, Overall tree canopy requirements, changes to internal City Code references; 15. Section 36.2-646, Façade planting, changes to building conditions where façade plantings are required; 16. Appendix A, Definitions, additions, removal, and changes to definitions; 17. Appendix B, Submittal Requirements, changes to Basic Development Plan submission requirements; On February 2, 2026, the City Council adopted a Resolution(Resolution No. 43349-020226) initiating the evaluation of various aspects of the Zoning Code, including vape shop regulations, the September 16, 2024 housing ordinance, and other identified community concerns to provide additional opportunities for further public comment, Planning Commission review, and City Council review. The Zoning Amendments that will be considered: 1. Reduce the density of dwelling units permitted in certain residential zoning districts. More specifically, some of the proposed amendments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, would reduce the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on residentially zoned property, specifically in the R-12, R-5, R-3, RM-1, and RM-2 Residential Districts. Geographically, these residential districts are located throughout the City and cover the bulk of the City's land area and almost all of Roanoke's housing supply. The purposes of the R-12, R-5, R-3, and RM-1 districts are to provide a range of housing options and to provide opportunities for compatible home-based entrepreneurship. Dimensional and supplemental regulations implement standards that control building 7965\0047\l 3245 867v 1 form building placement and other characteristics of development. These districts cover the majority of the City's land area and contain most of Roanoke's housing supply. The purpose of the RM-2 district is to provide for all housing types with an emphasis on townhouses, cottage courts, and apartment buildings. This district is generally mapped in areas near or adjacent to neighborhood and other commercial centers,but also may be applied to existing apartment buildings in neighborhood contexts. Depending on the zoning district, the proposed amendments include, but may not be limited to: increasing the minimum lot area required for each dwelling unit,reducing the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on a lot, and/or establishing a maximum lot area. The following chart describes the changes in more detail: Zoning District I RA R-12 I R-7 I R-5 I R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RMF Minimum lot area for each 43,560 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 ' 1,500 17004 11,000 dwelling (sq ft) 4,000 2,000 1,500 1,500 I Minimum lot area for each 1,500 1,000 1,000 group living adult resident or room (sq ft) I Corner lot maximum number of 1 3 4 No No dwellings 4 4 6 limit limit Interior or through lot maximum 1 1 2 3 3 4 No No number of dwellings 2 2 3 I limit limit Minimum area of a lot 43,560 8,000 5,500 4,000 3,000 i 4,000 4,000 15,000 1 Maximum area of a lot j 1 15,000 24,000 Note:Text to be removed is in red strike-trreragh,and new proposed text is in red underline, Fora map of the residentially zoned property subject to the changes, please visit www.roanokeva.gov/cmi/map 2. Implement priorities of the City Plan 2040 related to housing, neighborhood choice, complete neighborhoods, equity, context-sensitive design, health, wellness, and purposeful land use; 3. Address the need for a broad range of housing types available; 4. Add use classification and supplemental regulations for vape and tobacco establishments, data centers, data processing facilities, and inpatient mental health and substance abuse clinics; 5. Limit districts where self-storage uses are permitted to allow more efficient use of the City's limited developable land area; 6. Clarify and correct elements of the zoning code that are confusing, hard to read, or difficult to enforce; 7965\0047\13245867v1 7. Change where certain uses are permitted, not permitted, or require a special exception in the following use categories: Commercial; Industrial; Assembly and Entertainment; Public, Institutional, and Community Facilities; Warehousing and Distribution. (2) A request by the City of Roanoke to consider adopting amendments to Evans Spring Master Plan adopted as a part of City Plan 2040, the City's comprehensive plan. Evans Spring Master Plan is designed to provide a vision that addresses neighborhood needs, environmental conditions, market conditions, economic impacts, and infrastructure constraints. A physical copy of the proposed amendments is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Suite 456,Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, 24011. Citizens may also access the amendments, along with explanatory material, at http://roanokeva.gov/cmi. The ordinance ordaining, amending, and/or adopting the amendments described above shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council for the City of Roanoke. All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the City Planning Commission at the public hearing. Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Planning Commission by mail to 215 Church Avenue SW, Room 166, Roanoke, VA 24011, or by email to planningcommission@roanokeva.gov. Emily G. Clark, Secretary, City Planning Commission The City of Roanoke will make reasonable accommodations for any person with a disability to participate in the hearing. Please contact the City Clerk's Office, (540) 853-2541,by noon, April 10, 2026, to request accommodations. The City of Roanoke provides interpretation at no cost for all public meetings,upon request. If you would like to request an interpreter, please let us know at least 24 hours in advance by calling (540) 853-1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke proporciona interpretacion sin costo por todas citas publicas, previa solicitud. Si usted desea solicitar un interprete, haganoslo saber con al menos 24 horas de antelacion por llamar(540) 853-1283. Jiji la Roanoke linatoa huduma ya ukalimani bila malipo katika mikutano yote ya umma, inapoombwa. Iwapo ungependa kuomba mkalimani, tafadhali tujulishe angalau saa 24 kabla kwa kupiga simu (540) 853-1283. LaLa 1 �I(19= c5-4.3.10 4a0 L51 u s u170- J-1 IJ L.(540) 853-1283 u a) t,LA-4 JI J4,*=.'24 J91.,iai^t ,.�y.1 Leata,I LDLy 7965\0047\13245867v 1 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, May 11, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matters may be heard, in the CSA Conference Room (Formerly EOC Conference Room), First Floor, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, to consider the following requests: A request by the City of Roanoke to consider and adopt updates to the Complete Streets .Policy and adopt the Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan as a part of City Plan 2040, the City's comprehensive plan adopted in 2020. The Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan is designed to enhance roadway safety, aiming to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries by 2040 and cut them by 25% by 2030. This plan will focus on all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit users, motorists, micromobility users, and commercial vehicle drivers. Application by Douglas Devine to rezone property located at 1007 3 1/2 Street SE, bearing Official.Tax Map No. 4020920, from I-1, Light Industrial District, to UF, Urban Flex District. The land use categories permitted in OF include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; industrial; warehousing and distribution; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility;, agricultural; and accessory, but does not specify density. The comprehensive plan designates the property for urban flex use. The proposed use is a laundromat. Please note that this is a change in location for the May 11, 2026, Planning Commission public hearing only. Physical copies of the plan and application are available for public inspection in the Planning, Building, & Development Department, First Floor, Room 170, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, 24011. Citizens may also access the plan and application at www.roanokeva.gov/1088. All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the Planning Commission at the public hearing. Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Planning Commission by mail to 215 Church Avenue SW, Room 170, Roanoke, VA, 24011, or by email to planningcommissionaroanokeva.gov. Emily G. Clark, Secretary, City Planning Commission City Council will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid matters on Monday, May 18, 2026, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matters may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia. All persons wishing to address City Council may sign-up online at www.roanokeva.gov/council. In order to sign up, the form to speak before City Council may be accessed under the tab "Sign Up Form to Speak Before Council" on the left of the screen. For further information, you may contact the Office of the City Clerk at (540)853-2541. Cecelia F. McCoy, CMC, City Clerk The City of Roanoke Board of Zoning Appeals will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, to consider the following application: Application by Least of These Ministry to appeal a Zoning Administrator's Determination dated February 25, 2026, pertaining to the zoning use classification for property located at 420 Luck Avenue SW, bearing Official Tax Map No. 1012406. Physical copies of this application are available for public inspection in the Planning, Building, & Development Department, First Floor, Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, 24011. Citizens may also access the application at https://www.roanokeva.gov/1074. All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at the public hearing. Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals by mail to 215 Church Avenue SW, Room 170, Roanoke, VA 24011, or by email to planninqaroanokeva.gov. Emily G. Clark, Secretary, City Board of Zoning Appeals The City of Roanoke will make reasonable accommodations for any person with a disability to participate in the hearing. Please contact the City Clerk's Office, (540)853- 2541, by noon, May 8, 2026, to request accommodations. The City of Roanoke provides interpretation at no cost for all public meetings, upon request. If you would like to request an interpreter, please let us know at least 24 hours in advance by calling (540) 853-1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke proporciona interpretacion sin costo por todas citas publicas, previa solicitud. Si usted desea solicitar un interprete, haganoslo saber con al menos 24 horas de antelaciOn por Ilamar(540) 853-1283. Jiji la Roanoke linatoa huduma ya ukalimani bila malipo katika mikutano yote ya umma, inapoombwa. Iwapo ungependa kuomba mkalimani, tafadhali tujulishe angalau saa 24 kabla kwa kupiga simu (540) 853-1283. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 18th day of May 2026. No. 43399-051826. A RESOLUTION adopting the Safety Action Plan ("SAP") and Speed Management Action Plan ("SMAP"); authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute such other documents; and to take such further actions as may be necessary pertaining to the SAP and SMAP. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that Council hereby approves the SAP and SMAP, as set forth in the City Manager's report dated May 18, 2026, all such documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. ATTEST: ,Y31-6-corr. City Clerk. __ �/ /7 , �. ; City Manager's Report Submitted by: Ross Campbell, PE, Director Department of Public Works ROAN O KE May 18, 2026 Title: Adoption of the 2026 Safety Action and Speed Management Action Plans. Background: The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, administered by the'U.S. Department of Transportation, provides federal funding to support local efforts to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries..One category of SS4A funding, Action Plan Grants, supports the development of a comprehensive, publicly available safety action plan. Adoption of an Action Plan is also a prerequisite for future SS4A Implementation Grant applications. In 2023, the City'of Roanoke was awarded $480,000 through an SS4A Action Plan_Grant to develop a Transportation Safety Action Plan and a Speed Management-Action Plan. The plans were developed by the City's Transportation Division in partnership with Toole Design Group and informed by crash data analysis, public engagement, and guidance from a multidisciplinary Project Advisory Committee representing transportation, public health, disability advocacy, transit, education, and public safety stakeholders. The plans establish a clear framework to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries by addressing speeding, high injury networks, and safety risks for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, motorists, micromobility users, and commercial vehicle operators. Considerations: City Council's adoption of City Plan 2040'established safety as a core transportation and public health priority. The plan calls for reducing crashes, lowering vehicle speeds, and implementing traffic calming strategies that improve safety for all users. City Plan 2040 also specifically identifies the creation and implementation of a Vision Zero Action Plan as a key action to improve transportation system safety. Adoption of the Transportation Safety Action Plan and Speed Management Action Plan fulfills these City Plan 2040 commitments and positions the City to pursue future SS4A Demo stration and Implementation Grant funding. Recor rn mended Action: Adopt the City of Roanoke Transportation Safety Action Plan and Speed Management Action Plan, which establish a Vision Zero framework to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2040 and reduce them by 25 percent by 2030. Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to take all necessary actions, execute related documents approved as to form by the City Attorney, and provide any additional information required to implement and maintain the adopted plans. Valmarie Turner, City Manager i 70 I ` ' CITY OF ROANOKE``- OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK '`:.t k_f /,` 215 Church Avenue,S.W.,Room 456 ., Roanoke,Virginia 24011-1536 e 9 Telephone: (540)853-2541 Fax: (540)853-1145 E-mail: clerk@roanokeva.gov CECELIA T.WEBB,CMC CECELIA F.MCCOY,CMC City Clerk Deputy City Clerk RUTH VISUETE PEREZ,CMC Assistant Deputy City Clerk May 29, 2026 The Honorable Ryan LaFountain The Honorable Tasha Burkett Commissioner of the Revenue City Treasurer Roanoke, Virginia Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. LaFountain and Ms.I Burkett: I am forwardingan attested copyof Ordinance No. 43400-051826 exempting from real P 9 estate property taxation certain real property, located in the City of Roanoke owned by Villa Heights Rec Center, L C, and 1729 Patterson Avenue, LLC (both properties under Restoration Housing), wh ch has been properly executed by Villa Heights Rec Center, LLC, and 1729 P.tterson Avenue, LLC, for purposes of assessment and collection of the service ch.rges established by the Ordinance. Sincerely, .4= `/'t' -, ,, Cecelia F. McCoy, CMC City Clerk Enclosure pc: Isabel Thornton, Executive Director, Restoration Housing, 1116 Main Street, Suite B, Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Kelvin Bratton, Director, Real Estate Valuation Valmarie Turner, Ciy Manager Laura M. Carini, City Attorney David Collins, Deputy City Attorney Acquenatta Harris, Interim Director of Finance IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA The 181h day of May 2026. No. 43400-051826. AN ORDINANCE exempting from real estate property taxation certain real property, located in the City of Roanoke,owned by Villa Heights Rec Center, LLC,and 1729 Patterson Avenue, LLC (both properties operated under Re toration Housing), a Virginia 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation ("Applicant"),providing for an ffective date, and dispensing with the second reading of this Ordinance by title. WHEREAS, the Applicant has petitioned Council to exempt certain real property of the Applicant from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6)of the Constitution of Virginia; WHEREAS,a public hearing at which all citizens had an opportunity to be heard with respect to Mal the Applicant's petition was hell by Council onch 18, 2026; WHEREAS, the provisi b ns of subsection B of Section 58.1-3651, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,have been examined and considered by Council; WHEREAS,the Applic nt agrees that the real property to be exempt from taxation is certain real estate, including the land and an building located thereon,designated as 2750 Hoover Street,Roanoke, Virginia,bearing official Tax Map No.2430601 and 1729 Patterson Avenue,Roanoke,Virginia,bearing official Tax Map No. 1212309, the("Real Property"), owned by the Applicant, which shall be used by the Applicant for the use of 1 asing office space to non-profit organizations, as more particularly described in the City Manager's Report dated May 18,2026; and WHEREAS, in consid ration of Council's adoption of this Ordinance, the Applicanthas voluntarily agreed to pay each ear a service charge in an amount equal to twenty percent(20%) of the City of Roanoke's real estate to levy which would be applicable to the properties at 2750 Hoover Street and 1729 Patterson Avenue, were such properties not exempt from such taxation, for so long as such properties are exempted from taxation. THEREFORE, BE IT O DAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Council classifies and designates the Applicant, Restoration Housing, a non-profit 501 (c)(3) corporation, as a charitabl or benevolent organization within the context of Section 6(a)(6) of Article X of the Constitution of Virginia,and hereby exempts from real estate taxation the Real Property at 2750 Hoover Street and 1729 atterson Avenue,Roanoke,Virginia,which Real Property is owned by the Applicant and used exclusively for charitable or benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis. Continuance of this exemption shall be contingent on the continued use of the Real Property in accordance with the purposes w ich the Applicant has designated in this Ordinance. 2. In consideration f Council's adoption of this Ordinance, the Applicant agrees to pay to the City of Roanoke on or befor October 5 of each year a service charge in an amount equal to twenty i (20%) percent of the City of Roanoke s real estate tax levy, which would be applicable to the real properties at 2750 Hoover Street and 1729 Patterson Avenue, were such properties not exempt from taxation, for so long as the properties are exempted from taxation. 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on July 1, 2026, provided a copy of the Ordinance, duly executed by an authorized officer of the Applicant,is filed with the City Clerk. 4. The City Clerk 's directed to forward an attested copy of this Ordinance, after it is properly executed by the Applicant, to the Commissioner of the Revenue and the City Treasurer for purposes of assessment and collection,respectively,of the service charge established by this Ordinance and to Restoration Housing. 5. Pursuant to Section 12 of the City Charter,the second reading of this Ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with. - , -- ATTEST: 0-to vita. / /Le. -c-. r City Clerk. ACCEPTED,AGREED TO,AND EXECUTED by Restoration Housing, a Virginia non-stock, non-profit corporation, this ka Ir` day of M by ,2026. Restoration Housing, a Virginia non-stock, Non-profit 501(c)3 corporation, By: a X. Name: T5 4.\ . Th or^tur Title: e ��UY 1 111,4*"..; Office of the City Attorney May 18, 2026 ROANOKE Title: Tax Exemption Request for real property owned by Villa Heights Rec Center, LLC and 1729 Patterson Avenue, LLC (both properties operated under Restoration Housing) located at 2750 Hoover Street and 1729 Patterson Avenue,:Roanoke, Virginia. Background:, Villa Heights Rec Center, LLC (Villa Heights), and 1729 Patterson Avenue, LLC (1729 Patterson), are both single member limited liability companies wholly owned by Restoration Housing, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation (the"Owner"). Villa Heights owns real property located at 2750 Hoover Street, Roanoke Virginia (Official Tax Map No. 2430601), and 1729 Patterson owns property located at 1729 Patterson Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia (Official Tax Map No.1212309)(collectively, the "Property"). The Owner rents these parcels to low-income individuals as affordable housing, and has applied for City Council to designate the Property as tax exempt on the basis of benevolent and charitable use. Restoration Housing states that its mission is to develop blighted property into affordable rental properties for the benefit of under-resourced communities through rehabilitation and stewardship. The two parcels,are both used by Restoration Housing for commercial purposes. Villa Heights rents 2,750 Hoover Street to Community Arts Reach,a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that focuses on community engagement, empowerment through arts, and youth programs. Restoration Housing receives $2,600 per month as rent. The primary tenant at 1729 Patterson Avenue is the The Grove which operates a residential treatment center for pregnant and parenting women. Restoration Housing receives $3,000 per month in rent from this tenant. Considerations: On May 19, 2003, the City Council approved a revised policy and procedure in connection • with requests from non-profit organizations for tax exemption of certain property in the City by Resolution 36331-051903gg with an effective date of January. 1, 2003. Under this policy and procedure, tax exemption petitions must be received by the City by April 15 for exemptions to be effective July 1, and by October 15 for exemptions to be effective January 1. By Ordinance-No.r43187-050525, adopted by City Council on May 5, 2025, a procedure was adopted that further detailed the process by which nonprofit organizations must apply to City Council fors the exemption. The owners have provided the necessary information to the City for City Council to consider its application for tax exemption of the property that would take effect July 1, 2026. The total assessed value of the real estate for 2750 Hoover Street is $562,200 for the 2026-2027 tax year for which tax exemption is sought, with a total tax of$6,858.84. The loss of revenue to the City of Roanoke for the 2026-2027 tax year will be $1,371.77, after a 20% service charge is levied in lieu of real estate taxes. The total assessed value of the real estate for 1729 Patterson Avenue is $235,500 for the 2026-2027 tax year for which tax exemption is sought, with a total tax of$2,873.10. The loss of revenue to the City of Roanoke for the 2026-2027 tax year will be $574.62, after a 20% service charge is levied in lieu of real estate taxes. The Director of.Real Estate Valuation has determined that the property is not automatically exempt from taxes by classification or designation under the Code of Virginia. Pursuant to Section 58.1-3651, Code of Virginia, the governing body of a locality may exempt real property owned by nonprofit organizations from taxation if the property is used for religious, charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes. In considering whether to grant a nonprofit organization's request for tax exemption, the following questions must be considered: 1. Whether the organization is exempt from taxation pursuant to § 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; 2. Whether a current annual alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages has been issued by the Board of Directors of the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority to such organization, for use on such property; 3. Whether any director, officer, or employee of the organization is paid compensation in excess of a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services which such director, officer, or employee actually renders; 4. Whether any part of the net earnings of such organization inures to the benefit of any individual, and whether any significant portion of the service provided by such organization is generated by funds received from donations, contributions, or local, state or federal grants. As used in this subsection, donations shall include the providing of personal services or the contribution of in-kind or other material services; 5. Whether the organization provides services for the common good of the public; 6. Whether a substantial part of the activities of the organization involves carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation and whether the organization participates in, or intervenes in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office; 7. The revenue impact to the locality and its taxpayers of exempting the property; and 8. Any other criteria, facts and circumstances that the governing body deems pertinent to the adoption of such ordinance. In accordance with Section 32-8.1, City Code, a committee comprised of representatives from the Offices of Real Estate Valuation, Commissioner of Revenue, City Manager, and City Attorney met to consider Owner's application for tax exemption for the purpose of providing a recommendation to City_Council. After reviewing Owner's application and supporting documentation, this committee is of the opinion that City Council should deny Owner's request for several important reasons. First, Section 58.1-3651 requires that the property be used for religious, charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes, and any doubt is resolved against the party claiming the exemption. Second, while Owner is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation and rents these properties to nonprofit organizations, despite the benefit these organizations provide the community, Owner operates these rental properties for commercial purposes and receives income. Even though it may operate the properties at low profit margins as Owner states in its application, organizations generally lose their tax- exempt status under applicable law if tax exempt property is later rented for income. Virginia courts have emphasized that leasing -property for commercial purposes disqualifies property from being "exclusively used" for religious worship or other exempt purposes. Finally, the Owner's parcels have a substantial tax assessed value. The committee's concern is that granting Owner a tax exemption for these properties establishes a precedent by which other nonprofit organizations that provide facilities for rental to nonprofit organizations will be entitled to a similar tax exemption. Exempting such rental properties from real estate taxation erodes the City's fiscal base. Notification of a public hearing to be held'May 18, 2026, was duly advertised in the Cardinal News. Recommended Action: After consideration of comments received at the public hearing, deny Restoration Housing's application for the tax exemption of the above referenced parcels. Laura Carini, City Attorney KELVIN C BRATTON . ' -'',i RYAN S LAFOUNTAIN DIRECTOR OP REAL ESTATE VALUATION COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE ANGELA ARNOLD _ 4 �, JONATHAND TAYLOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR Rt[(} V CHIEF DEPUTY CITY OF ROANOKE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM REAL AND/OR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION General Information This application is for use by nonprofit organizations_seeking an exemption from taxes on property used for religious, charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes only. The application and supporting documents are considered public information and will:be made available for publicreview during the application process. Applications from.nonprofit organizations that are not eligible for.property tax exemption by classification or designation pursuant to § 58.1-3600 et seq. of the Code of Virginia may be forwarded to City Council for consideration for exemption by local designation. If City Council wishes to move forward with the adoption;of a resolution granting a property tax exemption by designation,a public hearing will be held`to allow citizen input.The cost of publishing the notice of the hearing will be the responsibility of the applying organization.As part of our review,it may { be necessary to request and:review.additional records:-If.you have any questions;regarding the application for exemption process, please call the birettOrs of Real Estate Valuation at(540)853- 2771:or-the.Comrnissioner of the Revenue at(540)853-5256. If granted,any exemption by local designation from City:Council will become effective on the next Januaryl-or July.1 following the granting of.the'exemption.All exemptions are.subiect to triennial.review. Instructions Please complete_-the application in,its:entirety and deliver it to the'Commissioner of the Revenue's and/or.Director of Real Estate Valuation via email; US Mail or in-person. Please refer to the last page Of this application for directions on.delivery:Questions that cannot be answered within the space provided,maybe answered by attaching additional:sheets.to this application. Failure to answer all.questions and/or provide required documentation may,result in a delay in processing the application.The application;must be signed by a duly authorized officer,director or member who is knowledgeable as to the organization's activities and operations,and who can attest to the accuracy_of the information provided. A written notification of:determination will be:mailed to the applicant after the application and all:supporting documentation have been . . reviewed. Unless and until an organization has been notified that it-is,exempt from_property taxes,_the ;organization is-instructed to continue:filing all appropriate'-tax documents:and returns and continue to pay all taxes in;a timely fashion. = 215 Church Avenue SW:*.Roanoke Virginia 240ll 'wivrv.roanokevagov CITY OF ROANOKE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM REAL AND/OR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION Organization's Name Restoration Housing Organization's FEIN/TIN Date •Organization Began 4'7' 04568Z Operations in Roanoke Cit July 7th,2014 Contact.Name and Title, Isabel Thornton,Executive Director ;phone Number 540-797-0819 Email Address isabel@restorationhousing.org Website" www.restorationhousing.org Mailing 1116 Main Street, Suite B Roanoke: 41 24015 Address Street Addressor PO Box City/Town State ZIP Code Roanoke' : 1116 Main Street, Suite B Roanoke VA 24015 Location Street Address(No PO Box) - - . City/Town State ZIP Code 1: -What is the organization's pu ose?_ The mission of Restoration Housing is to develop affordable rental properties for the benefit of under-resourced communities through the rehabilitation and stewardship of the historic,built environment. Describe the services providedtothe residents of the City of Roanoke by the organization.:: • • RaSaratian Housingp cewens na¢txted htstorid shuatur tale safe,saoua,end eomtanable rental homes fer iw-ta ndddfo-6ioomo In zduala end fam➢Ica In the noanohe area.We also prosorve ntaodc etmearee rats aftmdeble rental wttoen for norq a crgoNm5erro aeekhrg to expand scMces In low-to moderatedncome netghbornoods,catted'coremur0y Impact proiocta.°lT,esa propMies have law rents}. both a part of our orrgganizatlaa'c relenton and because It aSows the nonprafittcnactls to tktve In thrt work and thereof°batter serve thetfsumauMing conmruniy.The two pmpanlce listed below are our ry pool Projecto larovm as V'Wa Heights and The Grove on Paaanxm;ro;pscttvaly. .. 3. What is the organization's federal tax designation?.. 0501(c)(3) C301(c)(4) CB01(c)(6) 0501(c)(7) ❑Other. 4. Please provide a detailed list'Of all real estate,tangible personal'property or vehicles_owned by the organization for which property tax exemption is sought. _ Real Estate-Please provide documentation supporting the date the property began being used exclusively for non-profit purposes. Tax Map ID Property Address Date° Description of property use 2430601 2750 Hoover Street, Roanoke, VA 24017 1le1/201e Communlyromeauan center,nonprofit daces,and daycare 1212309 1729 Patterson Avenue, Roanoke, VA 24016 04,142.5 �ahprw dopcwS gaeree0n nt hod yfo pregr rt�lW tpa ten tion Tangible Personal Property Description Location as of January i' Year Acquired • Original Cost Vehicle Personal Property Vehicle ID Number Year Acquired. Purchase Price Vehicle Year Vehicle Make Jurisdiction where Is this -vehicle used (VIN) vehicle is normally exclusively for the garaged or parked organization's nonprofit purpose? 215 Church Avenue SW*Roanoke,Virginia 24011 www.raanakeva.gov CITY OF ROANOKE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM REAL AND/OR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION Categoryof Exemption*Please read carefully.. If the organization is included m any of the categories fisted in:Question 5 below,please check the appropriate box and skip to the last page of the application.Complete the Appointment of Representative statement;if applicable,and sign the application acknowledging the accuracy of the information provided.Submit the application along with a copy of the IRS Tax Exempt Status Determination and a copy of 'beard minutes or bylaws which authorize signatory authority to the application.If the organization does not fit any the categories listed in Question 5 below,please skip to.Question 6 and Complete the remainder of the application in its entirety.Failure to complete the application and provide the necessary documents may result in a delay in processiingthe application: -.S. `Select the appropriate category of exemption,-if applicable. ❑Church/Religious Body ❑Museum 0 Institution of Learning ❑Non-Profit Cemetery El Park/Playground ❑Boys Scouts and Girls Scouts of America ❑Hospital 0 Volunteer Fire Department or Rescue Squad '-6:' Please list the salaries and other compensation;if any,received by the organization's officers,directors,and Board.Members and •, three highest-paid employees,if necessary,Include provide the requested information on additional sheets:- °- Name Title - -Annual Compensation Isabel-1 hornton executive Director- $75,000 Maribeth Mills Advancement,Manager $48,000 Nina Gibson Finance and Pro_Dertv Mana , mood Jerry Duncan I-aclhtles Manager 531,oe4 . • • 7:_•What is the dollar value of the services provided by theorganization in,the preceding celeridaryear?What was the saurceof funds- in percentages for the preceding Calendar yearyeeifor each of the below,categories? Dollar;Value of Cash Contributions In=Kind Material ' Local State• "Federal Funds or• -Services Provided: -. .Services , Grants;:' $1,712,osi.83 - 21 • % r .. .• 5 : % 37.- '.-: •-%� 41 :'off' '','-Does the organization have a current alcoholic beverage-license for serving alcoholiabeverages issued by the Virginia`Beverage` Control(ABC)Board for use on the,property listed`on this application? ❑Yes 13 No - ;9.3..Does the organization engage in any activities unrelated to the-purpose for which it was established? Oyes ONo - -•= If Yes,please describe such activity: ' -10. Does the`organization have anyrule,regulation policy;or,practice that unlawfully discriminates on the basis of religious conviction, race,color,sex,sexualorientation;gender identity or national origin? , • , • ❑yes B No . ... - - - 11:;:Does any part of the earnings ofthe organization inure to•the benefit of any individual? ,• ❑Yes BNo.. .. a2, lithe organization involved in carrying rg on propaganda,or otherwise attempfing toinfluence`legislation?.._. ; _' ❑Yes IZtilo- If Yes,please describe such activity: . , ' . .. " 13. Dees the`organization participate or:intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public.office? ❑Yes : BNo • 14. `Does the organization provide services exclusively to City of Roanoke resident-et. . ' 8 Yes El No • If no,please.complete Question 15.if yes,please skip Question 15. - : 15. -What percentage of services are provided to residents in;each'locality(please name the other localities).the organization serves? City of_Roanoke '- -• Total - % 100% ' .16:. Please provide copies of the documents below alongwith;the`completed application P,leasereview.corefirlly B IRS Tax Exempt Status,Determination - 8 Pamphlets,:brochures,weekly bulletins or any literature that B IRS Forms 990/990T for two prior years - describes the religious,charitable,'patriotic,historical,benevolent, Income and Expense statements for two:prior.years cultural,public park or playground purposes of the organization Certificate of Good Standing from Virginia State Corporation 8 Copy of Board minutes or bylaws which authorize signatory Commission authority to this application B Mission Statement. • B Statement OfJustification describing the organisation,its services 9 Articles of Incorporation,including;amendments thereto and why the City of Roanoke should consider granting a tax- CI Current alcoholic beverage license issued by Virginia Alcoholic exemption(maximum 3 pages-in length) Beverage Control,if applicable ' • V ' ' • - 215 Church Avenue SW*'Roanoke,Virginia 24011 .www.rognokeva.gov CITY OF ROANOKE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM REAL AND/OR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION 17.'.:Describe how the real and/or personalrequestedfor exemption is currently used and how'itwill`be used in the future. 1729 Patterson Avenue and 2750 Hoover Street each have low rents both as a part of our organization's-mission and because the low rents allow the nonprofit tenants to thrive in their work and therefore better servo their surrounding community.The two properties aro our Community Impact Projects known as Villa Heights and The Grove on Patterson, respectively.For each of these two properties,Restoration Housing keeps their rents low as part of our mission;however,these rents barety cover operational expenses to upkeep these large,historic properties,which often need consistent maintenance that is above and beyond most contemporary buildings.Therefore,our Organization Is requesting property tax exemption in order to help us to keep our rents affordable and to maintain each building to the high quality that we aspire to. -18: Please provide the following information on fiscal impact w:• - •--. a. Number of employees employed by this'orgenization as of December 31 of the prior year: 4' b. Number of employees residing in the City of Roanoke as of December 31 of the prior year: 1 :F Location(s)of residence of other employees as of December 31'of the prior year: Roanoke County anti Betatoun County d. Average annual income of all employees during for the prior calendar year: S35,138 e. Average annual income of employees residing in the City of Roanoke during the prior calendar year. $2s,eoo 19. If not specifically identified in the financial statements provided with this application,please state the annual amount spent,by he organization during the preceding two fiscal years for•the following purposes: - ' • - Fiscal-Year Period(MM/DD/yYYy)from U I /0 I /GULO to-12 /a+ J 2o2s- Marketing or Promotion:$27,Q85 40 Government Relations:$'o Fiscal Year Period(MM/DD/YYYY)from_o+ /e+ 2o2a to is a+ 2024_. - Marketing or'Promotion:$5a.17e Government Relations:$o . - .APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE:' - .(optional,compfetaonly Ifyou require or wish to appoint a representattvay I hereby appoint Isabetamrdn - - : m whose telephone number is (540)757-0819 ,mailing address Is tite Maln Skeet Suite e,Roanoke.VA 24015 and email address is Isabelsresmratbrerousire.org to represent the organization during the tax exemption application process this year.I • hereby give permission to employees of the Commissioner of the Revenue and Director of Real Estate Valuation to discuss this application with the organization's representative and agree to provide the necessary information should the organization's appointed representative fall to do so. • APPLICANT'S DECLARATION By my signature,I willfully declare that the information provided is true,correct and complete,and I am authorized to_file this application on behalf of the organization..I acknowledge that the application and supporting documents are considered publiciriforrnation and will be available for public review during the application process. • - • I further certify that 1 will immediately notify the Office of Real Estate Valuation of any change in use of any real property or the Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue of any change in the use of any tangible personal property listed in this application since it may affect the 'property's tax status.• • • Additionally,after the submission of this application,I agree to notify the Office of Real Estate Valuation if my organization acquires or disposes of any real property or the Office of the Commissioner of the-Revenue if my organization acquires or disposes of any tangible personal property. - Aut oozed Signatory for Organization • Date- ' SUBMISSION IPATRUCTIONS Once completed,please submit this application to the Office of Real Estate Valuation(if seeking real property tax exemption),Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue(if seeking personal property tax exemption),or both offices(if seeking both). • - • In-Person/Mail: Office of Real Estate Valuation Commissioner of the Revenue Email: 215 Church Ave SW • 215 Church Ave SW . taxexemptions@roanokeva.gov Room 250 Roorn 251 ' • Roanoke,Virginia 24011 Roanoke,Virginia 24011- Attn:Tax Exemptions - Attn:Tax Exemptions- 215 Church Avenue SW*:Roanoke,Virginia 24011 • wwtv.roanokeva.gov ' IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,VIRGINIA The 18th day of May 2026. No. 43401-051826. AN ORDNANCE exempting from real estate property taxation certain real property, located in the City of Roanoke, owned by Assisi Animal Clinics of Virginia, Inc., a Virginia 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation ("Applicant"), providing for an effective date, and dispensing with the second reading of this Ordinance by title. WHEREAS, the Applicant has petitioned Council to exempt certain real property of the Applicant from taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the Constitution of Virginia; WHEREAS, a public hearing at which all citizens had an opportunity to be heard with respect to the Applicant's petition was held by Council on May 18, 2026; WHEREAS, the provisions of subsection B of Section 58.1-3651, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,have been examined and considered by Council; WHEREAS,the Applicant agrees that the real property to be exempt from taxation is certain real estate, including the land and any building located thereon, designated as 725 Franklin Road S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, bearing official Tax Map No. 1020227, the ("Real Property"), owned by the Applicant, which shall be used by the Applicant as a low cost veterinary clinic and pet adoption center, on a non-profit basis, as more particularly described in the City Manager's Report dated May 18, 2026; and WHEREAS, in consideration of Council's adoption of this Ordinance, the Applicant has voluntarily agreed to pay each year a service charge in an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the City of Roanoke's real estate tax levy which would be applicable to the property at 725 Franklin Road, S.W., were such properties not exempt from such taxation, for so long as such properties are exempted from taxation. Office of the City Attorney May 18, 2026 ROANOKE Title: Tax Exemption Request for real property owned by Assisi Animal Clinics of Virginia, Inc., located at 725 Franklin Road, SW, Roanoke, Virginia. Background: Assisi Animal Clinics of Virginia, Inc. ("Owner"), a 501(c)(3) non-stock, non-profit corporation, owns real property located at 725 Franklin Road, SW (Roanoke Official Tax Map No. 1020227) (the "Property") from which it provides a low-cost veterinary clinic and pet adoption center to the public. The Owner previously provided these services from its location at 415 Campbell Avenue, SW, Roanoke, Virginia which City Council designated as tax exempt pursuant to Ordinance No. 38165-072108, adopted by City Council on July 21, 2008. Owner has submitted an application requesting that City Council designate the Property as tax exempt on the basis of benevolent and charitable use pursuant to Section 58.1-3651, Code of Virginia. Assisi Animal Clinics of Virginia, Inc. states that its mission is to change the role of an animal shelter to include resources,programs, and services to benefit the pets in our communities and the people who love them. Assisi Animal Clinics of Virginia, Inc. is an independent, nonprofit animal welfare organization serving Southwest Virginia and West Virginia. Along with an Adoption Center and Farm Sanctuary, Assisi Animal Clinics of Virginia, Inc. offers a Community Pet Clinic, rural veterinary care, support in cruelty investigations, disaster response, and a safety net program for those needing temporary help due to domestic violence or emergency situations. Considerations: On May 19, 2003, the City Council approved a revised policy and procedure in connection with requests from non-profit organizations for tax exemption of certain property in the City by Resolution No. 36331-051903, with an effective date of January 1, 2003. Under this policy and procedure, tax exemption petitions must be received by the City by April 15 for exemptions to be effective July 1, and by October 15 for exemptions to be effective January 1. By Ordinance No. 43187-050525, adopted by City Council on May 5, 2025, a procedure was adopted that further detailed the process by which nonprofit organizations must apply to City Council for the exemption. The owners have provided the necessary information to the City for City Council to consider its application for tax exemption of the property that would take effect July 1, 2026. The total assessed value of the Property is $403,000 for the 2026-2027 tax year with a total tax of$4,916.60 for that year. The loss of revenue to the City of Roanoke for the 2026-2027 tax year will be $983.32, after a 20% service charge is levied in lieu of real estate taxes. If granted by Council, tax exemption of the Property will Commence effective July 1, 2026. The Director of Real Estate Valuation has determined that the Property is not.automatically exempt from taxes by classification or designation under the Code of Virginia. Pursuant to Section 58.1-3651, Code of Virginia, the governing body of a locality may exempt real property owned by nonprofit organizations from taxation if the property is used for religious, charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural, or public park and playground purposes. In considering whether to grant a nonprofit organization's request for tax exemption, the following questions must be considered: 1. Whether the organization is exempt from taxation pursuant to § 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954; 2. Whether a current annual alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages has been issued by the Board of Directors of the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Authority to such organization, for use on such property; 3. Whether any director, officer, or employee of the organization is paid compensation in excess of a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services which such director, officer, or employee actually renders; 4. Whether any part of the net earnings of such organization inures to the benefit of any individual, and whether any significant portion of the service provided by such organization is generated by funds received from donations, contributions, or local, state or federal grants. As used in this subsection, donations shall include the providing of personal services or the contribution of in-kind or other material services; 5. Whether the organization provides services for the common good of the public; 6. Whether a substantial part of the activities of the organization involves carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation and whether the organization participates in, or intervenes in, any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office; 7. The revenue impact to the locality and its taxpayers of exempting the property; and 8. Any other criteria, facts and circumstances that the governing body deems pertinent to the adoption of such ordinance. In accordance with Section 32-8.1, City Code, a committee comprised of representatives from the Offices of Real Estate Valuation, Commissioner of Revenue, City Manager, and City Attorney met to consider Owner's application for tax exemption for the purpose of providing a recommendation to the City Council. This committee is of the opinion that Owner's application meets the criteria set forth in Section 58.1-3651, Code of Virginia, and recommends that City Council grant the exemption. Owner provides a clear benefit to the community by offering a low-cost veterinary clinic and pet adoption center to the public. Notification of a public hearing to be held May 18, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. was duly advertised in Cardinal News. Recommended Action: After consideration of comments received at the public hearing, and determining that granting the exemption requested is appropriate, adopt an ordinance to authorize.Assisi Animal Clinics of Virginia, Inc.'s exemption from real property taxation pursuant to Article X, Section 6 (a) 6 of the Constitution of Virginia, and Section 58.1-3651, Code of Virginia, effective July 1, 2026. cam---� Laura Carini, City Attorney loF • y lv • • • KELVIN S LAFOUNKELVINC i$RA[ 1 ON ,,r►-r;gyp; _ DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE VALUATION5. y COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE ANGELA ARNOLD = JONATHAN D'FAVOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR. ��t(}31! � CHIEF DEPUTY CITY OF ROANOKE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM REAL AND/OR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION General Information This application is for use by nonprofit organizations seeking an exemption from taxes on property used for religious, charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural,or public park and playground purposes only. The application arid supporting documents are considered public information',and will be made available for public review during the application process: Applications from nonprofit organizations that are riot eligible for property:tax exemption by classification or designation, pursuant to § 58.1-3600 et seq. of the.Code of Virginia may be forwarded to City.Council for consideration for exemption by local designation..If City Council wishes to move forward with the adoption of a resolution granting a property tax exemption by designation;a public hearing will be held to allow citizen input.The Cost of publishing the notice of the hearing will be the responsibility of the applying organization.As part of our review,it may. : be necessary to request and review additional records. If you have any questions regarding the . application for exemption process, please call the Director of Real Estate Valuation at.(540)853- • 2771 or the Commissioner of the Revenue at(540)853-5256. If granted; any exemption by local designation from City Council;will become effective on - the next January 1 or July 1 following the granting of the exemption..All exemptions are subiect to triennial review, • . Instructions = . Please complete the application.in its entirety anddeiiver it to the Commissioner of the - Revenue's and/or Director of.Real Estate Valuation via email, US Mail or in-person. Please refer to the last page of this application for directions on delivery.questions that cannot be answered within the space provided may be answered by attaching additional sheets to this application. Failure to:answer all questions and/or provide required documentation may result in a delay in processing.the application.The application must.be signed by a duly:authorized officer, director or member who is knowledgeable as to the organization's activities and operations,and who can j attest to the accuracy of the information provided..A written notification of:determination will . be mailed.to the applicant.after the application:and all supporting:documentation have been reviewed:Unless and until an organization has been notified that it is exempt from property taxes, the organization is instructed to continue filing all appropriate tax documents and returns and continue to pay all taxes in a timely fashion. . -: 215 Church Avenue SW *Roanoke,Virginia 24011 www.roanokeva.gov /19d\097 CITY OF ROANOKE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM REAL,AND/OR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION Organization's Name A 5.S 1 S: ?hJ nvz ric tlos, t h c. Organization's FEIN/TIN Gy ' Date Organization Began I •t 4H I Operations in'Roanoke City is IS 17-Oc, 1 Contact Name and Title (AS s 0 t tj r,) �9. Phone Number 140a �,•33 Email Address to new •e aend30/ASS%sti,d� Webslte.. erg .�t1c(4S> i@SScSI• �1 Mailing l J J Address' ,;, street Address orPO.eox. City/Town State - 'ZIP Code• - Roanoke Roanoke VA 7•440 it •1.Ocation :_stiest Address(No PO Box) City/Town State " .ZIP Code • 1. •What Is the organlzatlon'spurpose? •. .' . - • . . . o dip o►,f dott-wmany eel& 1 (ttli 4/VI IvekF , wlt( 0.ori.,"4w. AS-GI : "V1 • 2. Describe the services provided to'the residents of the City of Roanoke by the organization. (4/10) C1 a•Q Li/ e uie1Ar^f,SY i g 1 c r* • / 4 z St' 't'D tik-rd,vvv.4,4 cetpc. cp 64. t( 1fk.i(1,eteSs totg • 73. What is the organization'sfederal tax designation?• 0 501(c)(3) 0501(c)(4) 0501(c)(6) 0501(c)47) '❑Other: - - 4.: :•Please-provide a detailed list of all real estate,tangible personal property or vehicles owned,by the organization for-w_hich_.property • tax exemption is sought. Real Estate-Please provide documentation supporting the date the property began being used exclusively for non-profit purposes. Tax Map ID Property Address Date Description of property use Jam' cQ 4— . AIDaar1 `°ll.S C'Q i , �oafm - ettuf - ee;n L rINfre,e0 —1) -91,3 Cet\Vil 41f CN--) Tangible Personal Property Description Location as of January 1" Year Acquired Original Cost • Vehicle Personal Property :-. Vehicle ID Number Year Acquired Purchase Price Vehicle Year Vehicle Make Jurisdiction where Is this vehicle used (VIN) vehicle is normally exclusively for the garaged or parked organization's nonprofit . . - purpose? : .. tf»� f 3� 1^024 5�5•�•e- eD Lcl i•ci bets • • 213 Church Avenue SW.* Roanoke,Virginia 24011 - www.roanakei'a.gav CITY OF ROANOKE • APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM REAL AND/OR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION .Category of Exemption—Please read carefully. . • ' If the organization is included in any of the categories listed In Question S below,please check the appropriate box and skip to the last • page of the application:Complete the Appointment of Representative statement,If applicable,and sign the application acknowledging the . accuracy of the information provided.Submit the application along with a copy of the IRS.Tax Exempt Status Determination and a copy of - •• • board minutes or bylaws which authorize signatory authority to the application.tithe organization does not fit•any of the categories listed In Question 6'below,please skip to Question 6,and complete the remainder of the application in Its entirety.Failure to complete the application and provide the necessary documents may result In a delay In piocessing the application: •- 5. Select the appropriate category of exemption,if applicable. D Church/Religious Body 0 Museum . D Institution of Learning . ❑Non-Profit Cemetery ❑Park/Playground ❑Boys Scouts and Girls Scouts of America • $Hospital NJt ►r4 f D Volunteer Fire Department or Rescue Squad - 6. Please list the salaries and other compensation;if any,received by the organization's officers,directors;and Board Members and three hlghest•paid employees.If necessary;Include provide the requested information on additional sheets. ..•`. . Name .. - .• :Title Annual Compensation - J b t-e• 1 t vivt4 • 1frr 4 S1 6,- • 7. :-•What is the dollar value of the services provided by the organization in the-preceding calendar:year?What Was the source of fun ds' .in percentages for the preceding calendar year for each of,the below categories? . : . Dollar Value ' • - Cash Contributions:: In-Kind Material :.. Local State : - _ Federal Funds or• :Services Provided •.�y' Services ,,• ,' :• 'Grants • • $I!{f OD (nip % % % % %8. : •Does the organization have a current"alcoholic beverage license for serving alcoholic beverages issued by the rginia Beverage :Control•(ABC)Board for use on the pr'.opertylisted on this application? D Yes SI No . . .9. Does the organization engage In any activities unrelated to the purpose for Which it was established? D Yes fNo if Yes,please describe such activity: • . • • 10) Doesthe organization have any rule,-regulation,poky,or practice that unlawfully discriminates on the basis of religious conviction, . reed,Color;sex,sexual orientation,gender identity or national origin?' D Yes `RNo •11. Does any part of the.eamings of the organization inure to the benefit of any individual? D Yes t%No . . 12: Is the organization involved in carrying on propaganda,or otherwise attempting to influence legislation?. - .- _ 0 Yes . . 'Q j4o [(Yes,please describe such activity: • 13. -Does the organization-participate or intervene in-any political campaign on behalf of any candidate far public office? - D Yes ./3.No . ..• 14:••Does the organization provide services eicclusively to City of Roanoke residents? '•• ' ••• Cl Yes , ' to If no,please complete Question 15.If yes,please skip Question 15. . 15: .What percentage of services are provided to residents iri each'locality(please name the other localities)the organization serves?. City of Roanoke . • - - • - . - - .Total - % - . % %^ % % 100%. 16: Please provide co les of the documents below along with the completed application.Please review carefully. - D IRS Tax Exempt Status Determination - • CI Pamphlets,brochures,weekly bulletins or any literature that. IRS Forms 990/990T for two prior years • describes the religious,charitable,patriotic,historical,benevolent, ❑Income and Expense statements for two prior years cultural,public park or playground purposes of the organization . ❑Certificate of Good Standing from Virginia State Corporation 0 Copy of Board minutes or bylaws which authorize signatory Commission authority to this application 0 Mission Statement - 0 Statement of Justification describing the organization,its services ❑Articles of Incorporation,including amendments thereto and why the City of Roanoke should consider granting a tax 0 Current alcoholic beverage license issued by Virginia Alcoholic exemption(maximum 3 pages in length) - . ' Beverage Control,if applicable •- 215 Church Avenue SW* Roanoke,Virginia 24011 tiwv<v.roannkeva.gnq .. . CITY OF ROANOKE . . APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM REAL AND/OR PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXATION 17...Describe how the real and/or personal requested for exemption Is currently ed and how It:will be'used In the future: Lam@lid T t& tO a f��l ' • ,lr�c + Awe. 44 • ilt�1 a ee:s trntt l�s 4Lbw . -Agee 416/11 I c ham • . • 18: 'Please provide the following information onfiscaiimpact: - a. Number of employees employed by this organization as of December 31 of the prior year: 5 b. Number of employees residing in the City of Roanoke as of December 31 of the prior year: • .01 - • t�. Locate n s)of residence f other er>)pioy as of December 31 of the prior ear: . d. Average anfival income of all employees Buring for the prior calendar •-5 - -- - 63l!" e. 'Average annual income of employees residing in the City of Roanoke during the prior calendar year: ' ie / .(1 19. 'If not specifically identified In thefinancial statements provided with this application,please'state the attnual'amount spent,by;. . • -- • '''the organization during the preceding two fisial years for the following purposes:.. t'' : ` - ` ' ' : Fiscal Year Period(MM/DD/YYYY)from / - / ' to /_ / - Marketing or Promotion:$ r Government Retail-tins:$ Fiscal Year Period(MM/DD/YYYY)from, / / to /.. / Marketing or Promotion:$ - . 1 Government Relations:$ : ' - - APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE . : ` . ` p, - -- ,`fopttioal,cdmFkta only If You n iuin or wish to oPaeN4 i iepri sintatNei _, I hereby appoint IA Sob 0 ci a j I whose telephone number is ~ NO' ",Obi ` 4• + mailing address is�;� igIPtP t� and email address - is(f((( @ s4a1' �CUM I. to represent the organization during the tax exemption application process this year.I • hereby give permissi to employees of the Csinmissioner of the Revenue and Director of Real Estate Valuation to discuss this application with the organization's representative and agreeto provide the necessary information should the organization's appointed representative fail to do so. ` -APPLICANT'S oECIARATION- _. ;.. . • By my signature,I willfully declare that the information provided is true,correct and complete,and I am authorized to file this application On behalf of the organization.I acknowledge that the application and supporting documents ore considered public information and will be • available for public review during the application process. I further certify that I will immediately notify the Office of Real Estate Valuation of any change in use of any real property or the Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue of any change En the use of any tangible personal property listed in this application since it may affect the property's tax status. . . . Additionally,after the submission of this application,!agree to notify the Office of Real Estate Valuation if my organization acquires or disposes of any real property or the Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue it my organization acquires or disposes of any tangible personal property. . . 14 6 tom '. (0) . Authorized Signatory for.Organization . . Date „ : - - :SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS `:: .- -' ' , Once completed,please submit this application to the Office of Real Estate Valuation(if seeking real property tax exemption),Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue(if seeking personal property tax exemption),or both offices(if seeking both). In-Person/Mail: Office of Real Estate Valuation ' Comm'ssioner of the Revenue 215 Church Ave SW 215 Church Ave SW Room 250 Room 251 Roanoke,Virginia 24011 Roanoke,Virginia 24011 . Attn:Tax Exemptions . . Attn:Tax Exemptions . - • 215 Church Avenue SW* Roanoke,'Virginia 2401.1 • . www.manakeva.gav . . • • • INTERNAL REVENUE_ SERVICE ' DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY P. O. BOX 2508 CINCINNATI, OH 45201 Employer Identification Number: ' Dater 54-2021941 'DEC .0.6 2061 DLN: . 17053155002031 ASSISI ANIMAL CLINICS OF_ VIRGINIA Contact Person: -- INC ' C. MCLOUGHI,IN- . ID## 11145 • 4142. MELROSE AVE NW STE 25 Contact Telephone. Number: ROANOKE, VA 24017 - (877) 829-5500 ' Accounting Period Ending: _ - • DECEMBER .31 • Foundation Status Classification: 509(a) (1) Advance Ruling .Period'Begins,: • O'ANUARY 26, 2001 - , Advance Ruling Period Ends: - - . . DECEMBER 31; 2005 • Addendum Applies: • NO • _ • Dear Applicant: - Based on- information.you supplied, and assuming your.operations will be as "stated in your application for recognition of exemption, we'have detterminedyou " are exempt from. federal income tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue ' Code ,as an organization described in section 501(c) (3) . Because you are a newly created organization, we are not now making a final determination-of your foundation status under section 509(a) of• the Code. • However, we have determined that you can reasonably expect to be a publicly supported organization- described in sections 509(a) (1) and,170(b) (1) (A) (vi-).;- - Accordingly, during an advance ruling,period you will•be .treated as a publicly-supported organization, and not as a private foundation. This advance ruling..period begins and,ends on.the dates shown .above. , . . . . . . Within 90 days-after the• end of your advance•rulingVper:iod,- you must _send us the information needed.to determine whether you have;met the. sequire-. • ments "of the applicable support test during the advance ruling period-. If••yau , establish that you have• :been• a publicly supported organization, we will classi-• _ y -you: as a section 509.(a) (1) or 509 (a) (2) organization as long -as"-you.•coatinub to meet the requirements of the applicable support test. ..If -you do.-not. meet the public support requirements during the advance ruling period,. we will ' classify:you as a private. foundation for future periods:. Also, if-we classify V . you as a' private foundation, we will treat you as a-private foundation from your beginning date-for purposes of section 507(d) and 4940. o . . Grantors and contributors. may' rely on bur determination that"you' are not a - private foundation until 90 days after the end ofV.your advance ruling period. f- If. you send us the required information within the 90 days, 'grantors and . . contributors may continue to rely on the:.advance determination until we make Letter 1045 (DO/CG) • ' . • -2-. - . - ASSISI ANIMAL CLINICS OF VIRGINIA • a final determination of your foundation status. 4 If we publish,'a notice in the Internal Revenue Bulletin stating that we will no longer treat• you as a publicly supported organization, grantors and " ' contributors may not rely on this determination after, the date we publish the notice. In addition, if you lose your status as a publicly supported organi- zation, and a grantor or contributor was responsible for, or was aware of, the . act or failure -to,act, that resulted in your loss of such .status, that person may not rely on this determination from the date of the-Act or' failure to .act. - Also, if a grantor or contributor learned that we had given notice that you would_ be removed.from classification as a publicly supported organization, then . that person may not rely:on this determination as- of the date he- or she acquired.such knowledge. • If you change your.sources.af support, your-purposes, character, or method ' of operation, please let us know so we can consider the effect of the change on your exempt status and foundation status.: If you amend your organizational document or bylaws, please send us a copy of the amended docume��}t or bylaws. • Also, let Us know all..changes in your name or:address. l As of January 1, 1984, you are liable for social security taxes under the Federal.Insurance Contributions Act -on amounts of $100 or more you pay to • , each of your employees during.a calendar year. You are .not liable for 'the tax imposed under the'Federal `UneMiloyment Tax Act` (FUTA) . . • brganizations•that are not -private foundations are not subject to the pri•- . , vate foundation excise taxes under Chapter 42 Of the Internal Revenue Code. ' However; you are not automatically exempt from other federal excise taxes. If • you have-any questions about excise, employment, or other federal taxes, please' let us know. Donors may.•••dgduct contributions to you as provided in. section 170 of the • Internal Revenue Code. Bequests, legacies, devises, transfers, or gifts to you or for- your use are ;deductible for Federal estete and •gif t tax purposes if they . meet the applicable provisions of sections 2055, 2106, and 2522 of the•Code-. . • Donors- may deduct contributions to you only to the extent that their contributions are:gifts, with no-consideration received. Ticket purchases and . , similar payments in conjunction with fundraising events may not necessarily qualify as deductible contributions, depending on the circumstances. Revenue Ruling 67-246, published.:in •Cumt&letive •Bulletin 1967-2, on page 104, gives • . guidelines,regarding•.when taxpayers may' deduct payments for admission to, or other participation in, fundraising activities for charity. ._.,contributions .to you are deductible by donors beginning January 26, 2001. . You are -not required •to -file Form••990,• Return of Organization Exempt From . Income Tax, if your gross receipts each year are normally $25,000 or less. .If you receive a form 990 package in the mail, simply attach the .labelprovided, check the box in the heading to indicate that your annual gross .receipts are . • • -i normally $25,000 or less, and sign the return. Because -you will be treated as Letter 1045 (DO/CG), . . • -3- ASSISI ANIMAL ,CL,,INIcs OF.VIRGINIA - a public charity for return filing purposes during your entire advance ruling ' period, 'yoy should file Form 990 for each year in-youradv .nce ruling- period that .you exceed the $25,000 filing threshold even.if your sources: Of support'• do not satisfy the public support test specified in the heading of this letter. . . If a return is required, it must be filed by-the 15th day of the fifth ' ,,` nth after the end. of your annual accounting period. A penalty-of $20 a day is' charged when a return' is filed late, unless there is reasonable cause for the delay. However, the.maximum penalty charged cannot exceed $10,000 or 5-percent of your .gross receipts for the year, whichever is -less. For organizations with gross receipts exceeding $1,000,000 in any-year, the penalty is $100 per 'day per return, unless there-is reasonable cause_ for the delay.,, '- . . . The maximum penalty for an organization with gross receipts exceeding ' $1, 000,000 shall not exceed $50,000. This penalty may also be charged if a return-is not complete. So, please be sure your return 'is .complete before you- file it. - • - You are not required to file federal income tax returns unless you are subject to the tax on unrelated business income under section 511 of the Code. • If you are subject to this tax, you must file an income tax return' on Form 990-T, •_Exempt Organization Business Income Tax Return, In this letter we are not-determining whether any of your.present or proposed activities are unre fated' trade or business as defined in section .513 of the Code. . • You are required to make your annual information return, Form 990 or Form §90-EZ, available for public inspection for three years after the later of the due date' of.the return -or the date the return is filed.' You are also required to make available for public inspection your exemption application, any supporting documents, and your exemption letter. Copies of these • documents are also required to be provided to any individual upon written or in Person request Without- Charge other than reasonable fees -for copying and postage. You may fulfill this requirement by placing .these -document on the Internet Penalties may be imposed for failure.to comply with these requirements. Additional information is available in Publication 557, Tax-Exempt Status for Your Organization, or yqu may call our toll .free- number shown. above. - . You need an employer identification number.even if you haven-employees. If an'employer identification number was not entered on your application, we will assign a- number to you and-advise you of it. Please use that number on all returns you file and in-all correspondence with the •Internal Revenue Service. • In accordance with section 508 (a) of the Code, the effective date off this determination -letter is January 26, 2001. • • This determination is based on evidence that.your funds are dedicat.ed. to the purposes listed in section•S01(c) (3) of the Code. :To assure your continued exemption, you should keep records -to show that funds are spentonly for those ' - purposes. If you distribute.funds. to other organizations, your-records should-- - show whether they are exempt. under section 501(c) (3) . In cases where the Letter 1045 (DO/.CG) . • W. Of -4- ASSISX ANIMAL CLINICS OF VIRGINIA • recipient organization is not exempt under section 501(c) (3) , you must have , evidence that the funds will remain dedicated to the required purposes and that • the recipient will Use the funds for those purposes. If you distribute funds to individuals, you should keep. case .histories. , showing the recipients' names, addresses, purposes of awards, manner of se-lec tion, and relationship . (if any) to members, officers,' trustees or donors of funds to.you, sQ•that you can substantiate upon request by the-Internal Revenue Service any and all distributions you made to individuals. I (Revenue Ruling 56-304, C.B. 1956-.2, page 306.) . . If we said in the heading of this letter that en addendum applies, the _ addendum enclosed is an integral part.of 'this letter. Because this. letter •could help us resolve=any questions about your exempt status and foundation status, you should keep it in your permanent records. If you have any questions., please contact the person whose name and telephone numberare shown in the heading of this letter. i . .. . Sincerely..yours, .. 4. Steven T. :Miller Director, Exempt. Organizations Enclosures) : Form 872-C • • • Letter 1045 (DO/CG) IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 18th day of May 2026. No. 43402-051826. AN ORDINANCE approving amendments to the Evans Spring Plan:A Comprehensive Guide for Development (hereafter Evans Spring Plan) and the. City Plan 2040, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include such amended Evans Spring Plan, including the Technical Memos. WHEREAS,on February 12,2024,the Evans Spring Plan,including the Technical Memos (the "Plan"),was presented to the Planning Commission; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on that date and recommended adoption of the Plan and amending.City Plan 2040,the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include such Plan; WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of§ 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, a public hearing was held before this Council on February 20, 2024, on the proposed Plan, amended to show Land Bay E as a conservation area, and at which hearing all citizens so desiring were given an opportunity to be heard and to present their views on such Plan; WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 42884-030424, adopted on March 4, 2024, City Council approved the Evans Spring Plan, as amended,as part of City Plan 2040,the City's Comprehensive Plan; WHEREAS, in 2025, a Council Member Initiative directed staff to review and update the Evans Spring Plan. This effort was intended to ensure the Plan aligns with community needs, City Plan 2040, and the City's long-term land use and environmental goals; WHEREAS,by Resolution No. 43350-020226, adopted on February 2,2026,City Council (1)Found that the public necessity,convenience, general welfare,or good zoning practice requires consideration of updates to the Evans Spring Plan; (2) Initiated the proposed updates to the Evans Spring Plan pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(7) and City Zoning Ordinance § 36.2- 540(b); and (3) Referred the proposed updates to the Evans Spring Plan to the Planning Commission for its consideration and recommendations, and to be scheduled fora public hearing; WHEREAS, on April 13, 2026, amendments to the Evans Spring Plan, including the Technical Memos (the "Plan"), was presented to the Planning Commission; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on that date and recommended particular minor amendments to the Plan and amending City Plan 2040, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include such amended Plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of§ 15.2-2204, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, a public hearing was held before this Council on May 18, 2026, on the proposed amended Plan, at which hearing all citizens so desiring were given an opportunity to be heard and to present their views on such amendment. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1 . Council hereby approves amendments to the Evans Spring Plan, and amends City Plan 2040,the City's Comprehensive Plan,to include such amended Plan, including the Technical Memos, as an element thereof, to adopt major amendments included in Option 3 as described out in the City Council Agenda Report dated May 18, 2026 and amendments regarding the interstate connector, and as follows: A. Include a statement that conservation is an acceptable alternative outcome to the recommended development plan or include an optional development plan with land bays A, D, and E as natural conservation areas. B. Amend the uses in Land Bay A to remove "Larger footprint commercial, destination retail" and add"Education, mixed use commercial,parks and open space." C. Provide a residential density gradient more compatible with Melrose Rugby along the abutting neighborhood properties in Land Bay C. D. Remove the language in the plan that appears to commit the City to infrastructure investments (partnerships) regarding the interstate connector. E. Remove the depiction of the interstate connector. 2. The City Clerk is directed to forthwith transmit attested copies of this ordinance to the City Planning Commission. ATTEST: ce_c_tat.41, J.; (4,7 : City Clerk. = - G CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ' V To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: May 1 8, 2026 Subject: Review of the Evans Spring Plan: A Comprehensive Guide for Development, which was adopted as a component of City Plan 2040, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and potential amendments. Summary: During the April 1 3, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed and considered amendments to the Evans Spring Plan: A Comprehensive Guide for Development, hereafter referred to as the Evans Spring Plan. By a vote of 5-2, the Commission recommends proceeding with Option 2 presented by staff to "adopt minor amendments to the Evans Spring Plan." The Commission finds Option 2 to be aligned with the general principles of the City's Comprehensive Plan and facilitates the development of property in a manner that supports the goals and purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. Background: The Evans Spring Planning Area is approximately 1 50 acres of land along the southern side of Interstate 581 . The Melrose-Rugby and Fairland neighborhoods border the property to the south and west. With the exception of right-of-way and a utility lot containing a stormwater detention basin, the properties are privately owned. The majority of the property is zoned RA, Agricultural District, with some areas zoned R-7, Residential District. Both zoning districts allow some development without a rezoning or a public process. However, any large-scale commercial or mixed-use development, like what is shown in the Evans Spring Plan would require a rezoning. In 2011 , as planning work began to complete the Valley View interchange, there was no definitive land use plan in place for the Evans Spring properties. City planners began a neighborhood engagement and planning process that resulted in the Evans Spring Area Plan. The plan, adopted by City Council in 201 3, provides a framework for expectations for how development should occur. It recommended development of a mixed-use neighborhood within the context of its adjoining neighborhoods, a regional shopping center, and an interstate highway frontage. The plan did not contemplate any scenario for permanent open space conservation or establishment of new parkland, nor have any Parks and Recreation Master Plans made such recommendations. 1 The 201 3 plan acknowledged that a more detailed master plan would be required before rezoning the land. In June of 2022, the City of Roanoke initiated another planning process with the goal of developing such a master plan. City Council approved a partnership agreement with the property owners and the Economic Development Authority to hire a professional consultant, LPDA, to look at the development potential while engaging adjacent neighborhoods and the surrounding community. The objective was to create a plan that is both economically feasible and has a positive relationship with the adjacent neighborhoods. After community engagement and extensive analysis, LPDA presented a plan that was then adopted in February of 2024 as part of City Plan 2040. The adopted plan contains nine major components to develop an overall framework for development. These include: • Site Analysis • Transportation • Stormwater management • Utilities • Market demand for development • Community engagement • Land use • Traffic impacts • Economic impacts All of these components are interconnected and depend on each other throughout the plan. The adopted Evans Spring Plan can be found in Attachment A. In November 2025, Council Member Nash put forward a Council Member Initiative requesting staff to review and develop updates to the adopted Evans Spring Plan. All planning documents should be developed in conjunction with the community. During the months of January and February of 2026, City staff requested feedback from the community on the adopted Evans Spring Plan. From this feedback, staff developed three options of potential next steps available to City Council. Proposal Given the current planning framework, staff have proposed three recommended options for City Council consideration. 1. Reaffirm the Evans Spring Plan as is. In February 2024, staff put together an analysis of the Evans Spring Plan as it related to general planning best practice and the City Plan 2040. This staff report can be found in Attachment B. 2 2. Adopt minor amendments to the plan. During the review and reconsideration of the Evans Spring Plan, staff developed three amendments that could easily be recommended for adoption into the plan. These amendments include: - Relabel the two most developed plans (recommended and optional) to "Option 1 and 2" in lieu of recommended/optional. - Extend residential or natural buffers along all developed abutting residentially zoned parcels. - Remove the language in the plan that appears to commit the City to infrastructure investments (partnerships). 3. Facilitate further study of major amendments requiring additional consideration. The Evans Spring Plan contains nine major components that are interconnected. Any major changes to the plan must be evaluated through each of these components including: site analysis, transportation, stormwater management, utilities, market demand for development, community engagement, land use, traffic impacts, and economic impacts. - Include a statement that conservation is an acceptable alternative outcome to the recommended development plan or include an optional development plan with land bays A, D, and E as natural conservation areas. - Amend the uses in Land Bay A to remove "Larger footprint commercial, destination retail" and add "Education, mixed use commercial, parks and open space." - Provide a residential density gradient more compatible with Melrose Rugby along the abutting neighborhood properties in Land Bay C. Considerations 1. Reaffirm the Evans Spring Plan as is. In February 2024, staff put together an analysis of the Evans Spring Plan as it related to general planning best practice and the City Plan 2040. The analysis from two years ago remains relevant and can be found in Attachment B. 2. Adopt minor amendments to the plan. During the review and reconsideration of the Evans Spring Plan, staff developed three amendments that could be easily recommended for adoption into the plan. These minor amendments address community concerns without changing the underlying fundamentals within the plan. - Relabel the two most developed plans (recommended and optional) to "Option 1 and 2" in lieu of recommended/optional. Relabeling the plans would give equal preference to the two most developed plans. 3 - Extend residential or natural buffers along all developed abutting residentially zoned parcels. Along the vast majority of the existing neighborhood boundaries, existing homes are bordered by proposed housing or natural areas, except along Norris Drive NW at the southeastern edge of the property. This change would provide the same level of compatibility to those homes as the remainder of the neighborhood. - Remove the language in the plan that appears to commit the City to infrastructure investments (partnerships). Economic development investments should be negotiated only when there are compelling reasons and a return on investment. While this is something that could occur, it should not be an explicit expectation of the City within a plan. 3. Facilitate further study of major amendments requiring additional consideration. The Evans Spring Plan contains nine major components that are interrelated. Any major changes to the plan must be evaluated through extensive analysis using each of these components including: site analysis, transportation, stormwater management, utilities, market demand for development, community engagement, land use, traffic impacts, and economic impacts. These amendments would also require further study for their compatibility and alignment with City Plan 2040. - Include a statement that conservation is an acceptable alternative outcome to the recommended development plan or include an optional development plan with land bays A, D, and E as natural conservation areas. It is important to acknowledge the context under which the master planning process was initiated. City Council adopted the Evans Spring Area Plan as a policy document in 201 3. That plan called for responsible commercial and residential development. Permanent conservation or establishment of a park has never been identified as a viable option by planning staff, City administration, or City Council. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan, also adopted (2019) as a component of the comprehensive plan, contains no recommendation for use of the properties for a park or recreational use. Given this context of adopted planning policy, a "no development" option has never been under consideration as part of this planning process. While the existing Evans Spring Plan calls for approximately 50% of the land area to 4 be preserved with greenway connections incorporated into the development, a change to the entirety of the land area or the addition of land bays A & D as natural conservation areas would change the underlying fundamentals of the plan. Therefore, this amendment will require careful study. - Amend the uses in Land Bay A to remove "Larger footprint commercial, destination retail" and add "Education, mixed-use commercial, parks and open space." Of the proposed uses within the plan, the big box store was one of the ones most noted by community members to be changed. Mixed-use commercial, educational uses, parks, and open space were preferred by some of the community within Land Bay A. This would change one of the major use components of the plan with impact on several of the nine components and should be carefully studied. - Provide a residential density gradient more compatible with Melrose Rugby along the abutting neighborhood properties in Land Bay C. Community members expressed concern over the potential use and scale across from a beloved elementary school. The land uses listed for Land Bay C are multifamily, light mixed-use retail, business incubator, assisted living, parks and open space. Changing this area to be bordered by residential uses at the neighborhood boundary could change the quantity of some of the major uses of the plan with impact on the nine components and should be carefully studied. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: The adopted Evans Spring Plan is aligned with the policies established in City Plan 2040. The six guiding themes of City Plan 2040 are Interwoven Equity, Healthy Community, Harmony with Nature, Livable Built Environment, Responsible Regionalism, and Resilient Economy. The readily adoptable amendments would be consistent with the analysis of the Evans Spring Plan and City Plan 2040 below. Interwoven Equity An initial goal of the Evans Spring Plan process was to engage the community proactively in shaping future development proposals. There will be continuous pressure to develop these properties because the inventory of vacant land is so limited. City Plan 2040 acknowledges the history of inequality in northwest Roanoke through both implicit and proxy racist policies, redlining, and the targeted implementation of urban renewal policies. As a result, City Plan 2040 5 through its focus on Interwoven Equity recognizes the need to build trust within the community. To this end, a sincere effort was made to hire a consultant team that had special expertise in community engagement and to support an effort that took note of the community's concerns for the future of the properties. The result was a transparent process that details the predominant themes of the public input and includes specific safeguards in the plan to achieve some of the community's goals while mitigating the impact of potential future development. The Evans Spring Plan provides city staff, Planning Commission, and City Council with a framework to guide any future rezoning and development proposals. Healthy Community The Evans Spring Plan promotes safety by recommending a transportation plan that eliminates a through connection from the interstate to the neighborhood, yet still provides access to some commercial elements and provides bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the potential development. The neighborhood expressed concern that the through connection from the interstate to the neighborhood would create traffic problems, and the consultant's traffic study showed their concerns to be warranted, as it would require significant roadway improvements to make the increased traffic level feel comfortable if the development was built with a through connection. The proposed street sections within the recommended plan are designed to be multimodal and meet the City's Street Design Guidelines. The plan recommends significant wooded riparian buffers, stream restoration, and greenway access for recreational access. Harmony with Nature Water Resource Management is a priority within the Harmony with Nature section of the comprehensive plan. The recommended development plan in the Evans Spring Plan will meet the Virginia Runoff Reduction Method (VRRM) and aim to minimize the impervious area and provide stormwater measures that will disconnect the impervious area. In addition, the proposed system will be designed to mitigate increase in runoff leaving the property due to the increased roof/ impervious areas. The project will include a number of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to manage stormwater generated from the development such as permeable pavement, detention areas, forebays, rain gardens, infiltration strips, bioretention swales, and level spreaders. This is in line with policy within City Plan 2040 to improve onsite management of stormwater quality and quantity in all development projects. City Plan 2040 also seeks to provide safe, accessible open space, greenspace, greenways, blueways, and parks for all residents. The Evans Spring Master Plan calls for the preservation of Evans Spring, protection of the floodplain, restoration of the stream and riparian area, establishment of buffers around the waterways, and enhancement of the surrounding habitat, while providing recreational 6 amenities to include public open space and connections to the greenway. Currently, these properties are privately owned, but the preferred development scenario selected by the consultant team would provide for a substantial amount of acreage to be preserved as open space open to the public with a network of trails connecting to the greenway. Livable Built Environment The Evans Spring Plan is consistent with and implements multiple policies of the Livable Built Environment theme. The plan promotes context sensitive design with main street commercial forms and mixing of various housing types. It protects the stream and tributary by avoiding development in the floodplain and establishing a riparian buffer. The residential element brings a range of housing options to the existing neighborhood that is mostly detached single dwellings with few other options. The plan recommends assisted living housing that would enable elderly residents to transition to other living arrangements and stay in their neighborhood. The plan further recommends a connected system of well-designed tree-lined streets that accommodate mobility for pedestrians and cyclists comfortably. Existing bus routes (1 1 &12) currently access the site. Responsible Regionalism City Plan 2040 describes a need for locally focused plans to work to prevent sprawl. The Evans Spring Plan has a regional anti-sprawl consideration. The plan implements adopted Sierra Club Urban Infill Policy, which advocates guiding new development into infill sites like the Evans Spring area. Staff has encouraged local environmental advocates to review the Evans Spring Master Plan in the context of the Smart Growth and Urban Infill Policy (2021 ) adopted and published by the Sierra Club. ' If the Evans Spring site is not developed, it does not mean that development will not occur. It will likely occur somewhere else in the region on a greenfield site, in a way that does not consider environmental preservation in its development plan, and in a location which has no prospect for transit access. Likewise, the City has often been supportive or an active partner in redevelopment projects throughout the City including in downtown, along the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area, and now within Riverdale, the former Viscose Plant. These redevelopment projects work in tandem with urban infill projects to help the City grow without creating sprawl. Resilient Economy For years, concerns in the surrounding neighborhoods have focused on restoring access to basic goods and services like groceries that residents once had access to ' www.sierraclub.org/smart-growth-urban-infill 7 in the neighborhood. Indeed, many of Roanoke's enduring and resilient neighborhoods have commercial development within and adjacent to the neighborhood, providing easy access. One of the intentions of the development framework is to provide access to goods and services without having to drive miles to other parts of the City. Furthermore, both the 2013 plan and master plan carefully consider the relationship of proposed development to the existing neighborhood. A key priority in City Plan 2040 was to develop local businesses and entrepreneurs. The Technical Memo on Local Entrepreneurship outlines an entrepreneurship development program that could be created to serve residents in neighborhoods that would be most affected by development at Evans Spring. The program could include small-scale incubator, retail incubator, and/or a community kitchen. The plan calls for the creation of opportunities for local entrepreneurship and lists business incubator as one of the recommended uses in both Land Bay B and Land Bay C. Public Outreach and Engagement In January and February of 2026, the staff hosted six public meetings at City of Roanoke Libraries on three of the Council Member Initiatives including study of the 2024 Zoning Amendments, implementing a vape shop ordinance, and review of the Evans Spring Plan. These meetings were conducted in an open-house format where community members could speak with staff about the initiatives, proposed amendments, and offer feedback. Due to inclement weather, four of the six open houses had to be rescheduled. In total, 121 unique individuals attended the open houses with some community members choosing to attend multiple meetings. News outlets also provided coverage of the meetings including, but not limited to, WFXR, Cardinal News, and Roanoke Times. Concurrent with the public meetings, staff also conducted a survey where the community could provide feedback on each of the information boards presented at the meetings. Seventy-one people responded to the survey with many respondents only providing feedback on certain topics. Staff also attended community meetings upon request. In total, staff attended four community meetings with the Wasena Neighborhood, Old Southwest Neighborhood, South Roanoke Neighborhood, and Strong Towns community group. The public has also been notified of a potential amendment to the Plan and public hearing through a legal advertisement placed in Cardinal News and the Roanoke Rambler. During the public and community meetings, the conversations regarding the Evans Spring Plan varied greatly and included intensifying development, keeping the existing plan, increasing areas of low-moderate intensity mixed use 8 development in place of large-scale commercial development, and increasing areas of preservation. These concerns were generally reflected in the survey responses, as well. Seventy-one people responded to the survey with 45 respondents answering the questions about the Evans Spring Plan. Generally, 37% of respondents did not answer questions about Evans Spring, indicating a lack of concern regarding this matter, 1 5% of respondents were supportive of the existing plan or more intense development, 14% were supportive of some development, 1 3% were supportive of more preservation, 1 1% want all of the property preserved, 1% want the plan repealed, and 8% of respondent comments were considered "other" with comments including removal of the big box element, desire for additional community engagement, and preservation of Top Hill Drive. Summary of Responses on Evans Spring Plan Intensify Development Support Plan 10 Support some development 10 More preservation 9 Preserve all 8 Repeal plan Other 6 No response 26 Public Comment Representatives of the "Friends of Evans Spring" have sent in comment requesting the establishment of an Evans Spring Nature Preserve, establishment of a Community Land Trust, additional affordable housing to be included in the plan, and development to be compatible with adjoining property owners and development pattern of the area. Written comment has also been received from the Blue Ridge Land Conservancy requesting for the plan to include language that the entirety of the land area or the addition of land bays A & D as natural conservation areas would be 9 appropriate. Additional comment has been received regarding how this consideration was reviewed at the Planning Commission meeting. Two additional comments have been received following the Planning Commission package posting. The first supports Option 3 presented by staff and requests that City staff lead the amendment process for the plan. The second requests that the conservation area shown in the plan around the river and creek corridor be placed in a conservation easement. Public Hearing Following a presentation by staff summarizing the history of the plan and the three options, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing on April 1 3, 2026. During the public hearing, four members of the public spoke regarding the plan and offered a variety of perspectives. One speaker had questions about the Evans Spring Plan in general and wanted to learn more about the process. The other three speakers all spoke on the theme of preserving the land in the planning area, and all provided different supportive reasoning. One emphasized the importance of private property rights; one emphasized the power of preservation in minimizing impact to adjoining property owners and minimizing fiscal burden to the City; and one emphasized the different opportunities that could be available with conservation of the land. The Planning Commission discussed the plan and the three options presented by staff. The discussion primarily focused on whether inclusion of language that conservation of the land would be appropriate. Commissioner Settle shared that he would like to see this language included, and that conservation of the property could be an economic opportunity for the City. Ultimately, the majority of the Commission agreed that Option 2 adding minor amendments to the plan was the recommended pathway. Conclusions and Recommendations: In review of the adopted Evans Spring Plan, the Commission finds the plan with minor amendments presented is aligned with the policies established in City Plan 2040. The plan provides a guide for development that balances interests of environmental conservation, recreational access, economic development, residential development, and transportation access. If City Council were to proceed with Option 3, then an extended study of the major amendments would be required for additional consideration. The previous plan was created over an extended period by a consulting team, made up of certified landscape architects, economic experts, and professional engineers, with experts in transportation, stormwater management, environmental management, market analysis, economic impact, and community engagement. A similar planning process would be appropriate for any major amendment. 10 Attachment A: ill: 8 . dlN q Y a ,, .., _.,, • Eva ns Spring,._ �� t4ha Y .... 1an *-....... _.• ,,, '- "A INTERSTATE 581 • .� • .; ..4�<, , b f ' • A Comprehensive Guide for • Development 1 y i� .„." ......,..._ ,- , .... . :, 1 A c .#,_ K ' \EY. t r 9 s _ ens z., + • �#\\ Adopted as a comprehensive • ° 44,. ;,,. I co // plan component " ' fi L ��P`'°� March 4, 2024 a F'_ r*t' R IDIO 6ec ikeR@ Oiler ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT & PLANNER 0iLPDA Land Planning & Design Associates 1006 E. Jefferson St, Suite B Charlottesville, VA 22902 I (434) 296-2108 Contact: Mr. Bill Mechnick, PLA TRAFFIC ENGINEER & INFRASTRUCTURE EPR,PC 902 East Jefferson Street, Suite 101 Charlottesville,VA 22902 I (434) 202-5082 Contact: Mr.William Wuensch,P.E. PTOE. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT © ri) „ Downtown Economics, LLC 1230 Garber Street Richmond, VA 23231 I (804) 244-6303 Contact. Mr.Chuck D'Aprix Economic, Planning, and Real Estate RKG Associates 1230 Garber Street `tl Richmond,VA 23231 I (804) 244-6303 Contact: Mr. Russell Archambault JURISDICTION illise ROANOKE City of Roanoke,Virginia 215 Church Avenue Roanoke,VA 24011 43' � ' ~ 3 _ � +em s 344 Ai TABLE OF CONTENTS ale ` � ? 1 PROJECT CONTEXT "3:.,!,,.,..„,,"t,, -:',,,'.:,.',, S 4 "'.W, ., " ,. i , �: ,. „;' p 2 HISTORY tea* " 3 PROJECT GOALS/OBJECTIVES .',:,A,-,„,.,.','d,,','4:.7'.,",„„,i 4,%;-,':'„,,.,,;-'„-,,,,,.-.:%'t..:,i.,,,'':,''"4''7.,,1Ci,v.:'''","'i,:,',',,,„,:''u,'.i,;.:1.:",,.,t",..4,;Z,..t,..e,,,,,.i.-,,.e`"i;:,,, » " .,, ' 1 4 SITE INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS $.7 y 5 TRANSPORTATION ,,".,,,9'",','tY,,_e 07'?'.".0l,:.3',4,':,'''1s',T''.='4.i4, „'.':-"'",0--:'4,,',;','*' .*".'",r,`";..';:‘,,,7,,:-e.31,,4, .„:;,',,,,,„:',,A -"- "' , .,, „° ti 6 STORMWATER CONDITIONS M W: w `� n UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE ", has ' : a " ,�( " a ' , �� a+� �" f 8 MARKET CONDITIONS 9 PUBLIC INPUT mow: 1 _ azx � ti * 10 LAND USE OBJECTIVES a " ,; 11 LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS , err; o a a " °'�" "A � &"'" 12 LAND USE SCENARIOS/OPTIONS -%,,:.,:,,,',y';.''„-':,47,,',:*1,, 0 4 1"4:"0,"'',i"N.'':-',,',t'', p = �1`.!, , �fw `� , 'j fiy F, gyp• ,,:,.!;4:I1,,",i,,-,;k2,,,.-„:e',',:,'-,,-,.„' v''71,,iO3,"4k,r k,4„,4i"„:'4-*:",_.0,‘'- 13 R• ECOMMENDED PLAN C s 14 LAND BAY PLAN t +r�s.Av i,.e.€ aka ,�.., z M '� �., fn d[ . ,, ,) , li , 15 TRANSPORTATION PLAN ' a , , ., ;` 16 OPEN SPACE & BUFFER PLAN w `, ' , ,• , 17 GRADING PLAN ' ,m6", A4 18 STORMWATER PLAN ..,, 19 P• ARKING PLAN ; t" , : 20 STREET SECTIONS ' ;,'w• " , 21 TRAFFIC IMPACTS 22 ECONOMIC IMPACTS „- 23 PLAN BENEFITS AND IMPACTS; o 24 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS 25 FUNDING AND PARTNERSHIPS 26 N• EXT STEPS mo4ea 7A - ....., - '..f ' f '.'"7.7 • --',.f.. ..7.,,,-, :*:t' 1',''',',.. :.,. ., .. . . -, . , .,,.. '),..,44 , - . ,,, -= -...., - ' titt, � as� t + -t n" � y • . ,. ,.mom 1s" ''' 401.11 'f --.. ,i- ''. -1,0111,- ,,,,,,," , ' '',..? rirb 4, ''''..ns.'''t .4 , ._ . . . , • loft �,.: . .., .ate•. .,.� w • ` Ctr ' / ikt • - � 1;, .^r. , .�a :`a- ' , . . C ♦ e i o ' - . . l • \ i' '•� _ . Photo Credits,Top row,and bottom right:Roanoke Group of the Sierra Club 4 1 Project Context The Evans Spring Planning Area is approximately 150 acres of land along the southern side of Interstate 581. Even with the interchange project complete, developers _- D }, The Melrose-Rugby and Fairland neighborhoods border still need to build a bridge from the ramp to gain access _1. -, the property to the south and west. The Evans Spring to the site.One significant challenge for the consultant will 7 ,� f, n �.� a area is the largest assembly of developable vacant land be to identify a feasible design and provide strategies for Q L-1 _ n ❑c il left in Roanoke. funding the construction. j� �o r ,-- l e: o -, �� ; _.--- - As work on the 1-581 interchange was being planned The properties would need to be rezoned by City Council - t �/ in 2011, city planners began work on the Evans Spring before development could start.The new planning initiative „°,,,, i. c °5 rp _.°. • Area Plan. The plan, adopted by City Council in 2013, could culminate in a rezoning application for consideration :--..-- - -- _-_-__--- provides a general framework for expectations for how by the Planning Commission and City Council. development should occur. It recommended development ,o of a mixed-use neighborhood within the context of its A team assembled by LPDA was hired to initiate the master o coo n4 adjoining neighborhoods, a regional shopping center, plan process. Work began with an extensive and robust i ° r'� F °j; ° ° JBo� and an interstate highway frontage. A detailed master public engagement process led by Downtown Economics, ' •r° o �� °° ° ' o °`w ° °. / a° ono„ °°o plan is required before development begins and will be LLC. C Lo_��o .J14 / (/ °oo °o , required before a rezoning can be considered. N�; RKG i „,-;,-,, ‘,--1,,„,,,,, ° ° 4 g °' ��°� © Git F.N'F fe0,,o q. co oG w a° '�✓ /�e o°"'' a d w. 4Q' .�wrM,.. A.r -v qw oownrowry �.� ENO ,. wxr .,*''' �o . o o ° o o ° L7•%° 1 oa.+�..- ^''�' „,, octe„ In June of 2022, the City of Roanoke announced that _ ""� �, �QQ f�� ° o ,__ a a ��°o °°°-os ci it would initiate an Evans Spring development planning n ��_ N s 11° 4 ° '� d °p ° ° ''0 4 ° �.0, '° �` .0,0, a °6 B`b °"n c• a o € i s a o a nY p o p.". ...0 process to provide such a master plan. CityCouncil 3�0°" of ` a. ,° ° • ,. opo s .9R° °,oa o S °° a '�o °o °�°° •°Ods° approved a partnership agreement with the property $ Evan oo. a: ° ° ° ° o a °°moo Q °� Springs ° B oa oo u °i�o�, qoa %B °°°°° o owners and the Economic Development Authority to ..,. ° a' °'�° e °� °o ��q° ° hire a professional consultant to look at the property's d Iv d,5.v_i doa ti '�°°' R_ po°°m° ch o % a e °e .w potential while engaging adjacent neighborhoods and the '- '• ' surrounding community.The objective is to collaboratively a� ' -� °°\ o��J — oar�D create a plan that is both economically feasible and has pD�,, 'S°>>,„ ro- a positive relationship with three adjacent neighborhoods known as Melrose-Rugby, Fairland,and Villa Heights. Evans Spring Master Plan ream 2 History Evans Spring and various other natural springs in the area, have a domain in the 2Oth century to seize homes in Northeast Roanoke.There of a lack of support. In 2023, discussion resumed when the city history intertwined with the city's growth,culture,and community. The is an established mistrust of the intentions of city governance and a fear hired LPDA to prepare a master plan that attempted to align springs were likely the main water source for Native Americans and of outcomes of most development scenarios.Particularly where it comes neighborhood and community needs,economic impacts and market early European settlers of Roanoke. The first documented colonist to impacts on the neighborhood, the use of eminent domain, and the realities, and site environment and infrastructure.The objective is to use the Evans Spring area was its namesake, Mark Evans, a protection of environmental resources. to collaboratively create a plan that is both economically feasible Welshman who migrated to the Roanoke Valley around 1740 after and that creates positive impacts,while mitigating other impacts. securing several land grants from King George of over 1,900 acres, In recent years,the Evans Spring area has been the subject of several including the Big Spring tract(87 acres)at the base of present-day Mill community planning and economic development discussions. The idea Mountain. Evans'Spring was the large spring northwest of the mouth to develop the area has had several iterations, however more focused of Tinker Creek and the Great Lick.The area first appears in Augusta involvement by the City started in 2011 when the Evans Spring Area Court records with an entry in April of 1746. Plan was adopted by City Council in 2013.The plan provides a general framework for expectations for how development should occur. It Currently the properties comprising the Evans Spring area is the recommended the development of a mixed-use neighborhood within largest assembly of undeveloped land left in Roanoke. It borders the the context of its adjoining neighborhoods, a regional shopping center, predominantly Black neighborhoods of Melrose-Rugby, Fairland, and and an interstate highway frontage. In 2019, a developer submitted an Villa Heights.Several families relocated there after the city used eminent application for rezoning. The rezoning plan was withdrawn because 2013 The Evans Spring Area Plan proposes preservation along the 'Magnolia Tavern'located on Orange Fairland Lake Club owned by Henry Giles, streams and commercial/mixed use RBI.r,•e.Av.w•e•%dd• and Williamson was established in pert of the Ville Heights Neighborhood with a transition to residential use. s•r.zo,sr' 1876 by Dr.Henry C.Hart as a facility taken down when 1-581 was developed. to treat patients with hydra therapy Developers in 2020 proposed to rezone a portion \ n the structure.It was later the site .,.,r�'- of the Evans Spring property to build mix of retail, of Dreamland a Black RecreationAI jv n commercial and residential Uses. The plan was Center in the 1940s and 1950s withdrawn staff and local resident concerns. 19205-1970s: The neighborhoods ' - - adjacent to Evans Spring Washington Park, Melrose-Rugby, Fanland, were „•, p,rryr irons heavily developed. _— w_ \ ,�f .rNa/ 1919 1975 fete 2022 ,., 1960s - -- - Care nose 1 s s e j;+' - Annexation of Evens ,s # ry� �..,s Springs lend Into the City , li of Roanoke. \', City Council approved a partnership s.� _ agreement with the property owners and I ^. " ' �� *'"� the Economic Development Authority to Q .•,�, hire a professional consultant to look at the In 1975,the first large scale residential development in the Melrose-Rugby property's potential while engaging adjacent Mark Evens, nrst settler m Roanoke, neighborhood since the 1920s was planned aft Andrews Road. Celled �`I& neighborhoods and the surrounding Heritage Acres,the development was subdivided for single family homes,but makes his homeplace at'Cedar Spring,' 2016 Valley View r 1s to help community LPDA was hired to initiate the the financier foreclosed upon the property.Fourteen years later,in 1989,the plan creates the Mill et Mill Mountain traffic flow more e(fi,;,� . development of Heritage Acres resumed,under new owners,but only a few :. <y View Mall master process homes were built and to open up opportumues Ion economic development. 3 Project Goals & Objectives The consultant team was asked to prepare an objective study to determine the feasibility of the development of the / Ae Conduct honest dialogue with the Evans Spring property in a way that aligns the concerns "ACTS` Community,establish trust,and and interests of the neighborhood, community, and property e�n'c/� inform expectations, create benefits. landowners. The overall goal of the planning effort was to 'C/��, deliver an informed plan for land use scenarios that balances Respond to realities of property neighborhood needs, market conditions, economic impacts, rights, market and Economics and infrastructure constraints. The four general categories of professional services included What are the potential benefits? Community input,Market&Economic Analysis, Infrastructure What are the potential impacts? Integrate Infrastructure and site &Traffic, Site Yield and Placemaking, opportunities and constraints Key issues to be resolved, addressed and or mitigated included. Make a Place that adds value to community and local economy • Negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Project Objectives • Feasibility and cost of the proposed Valley View Mall Interchange. �� IN IP alit Sat rr& • Protection of the Evans Spring demob environmental feature. • Conservation and protection of the Lick 1 COMMUNITY INPUT Run Creek flood plain and flood way — corridor. 2 MARKET & ECONOMIC ANALYSIS THE 3 INFRASTRUCTURE &TRAFFIC r RESPONSIVE PLAN 1 ,\ 4 SITE YIELD & PLACEMAKING Professional Services Areas 4 Inventory and Analysis LPDAprepared an analysis for the Evans Spring property to determine �� �\� 'a, ( �I general developable land area and areas to be conserved. The �Z .� �� ) .�i ,, �� analysis included evaluations, of slopes, soils, vegetation, adjacent ��• ,� % 'L r land uses, and environmental features. ` �� T t, �--^� artnao.w— - i Due to various encumbrances only about 112 acres of the site is f:"•-' - `r'��...,`„ RegulatoryF0ocway suited for development. This acreage is generally located on the \' `� r - `'""^ .d �'••"MM"'i"�""" ••'a."""•'!•••,. upland portions of the site with access to adjacent roads, gentler ' Zpna X(Soo Hazard Area "^�" Spepal Flood Hazard Area(BFHA.170 Vear2me}— „�"•s� ' J.,"' > i, Regulatory Floodway „✓"�'°'""••�"' topography and has been impacted by past development activities. • �� ' ••— ieto ' 1 MRP,...why, " - - - ' - 7 ' It ,s. *44 10, .C:1 , j 1 � ,1_ r mot' 44 • . -, ow..�,„a �g I _R ` �11M �• L41 fIDll ➢ ^) x ' yyyy •,, ,, - , ,.. ,177.0.:,,,,, .:‘, ••• •:,;;A\\ ' ' • •., , ., c\-,\ ,, .,,,, ,,., .., -71 - 1 it 1 (�11, F�,,,t: • � 1 J..z? •,_:„, 416•4, — ` ., :, _r_r., ? :_t_c_ifr„..,—FI"rtj — ,0- ct The FEMA Floodplain shown in blue as well as the steep slopes shown in red generally define the developable land bays for the project site.Of the total stte acreage approximately 30%is encumbered floodplain / 1 f J'. '�f Y F � .- T r . _T çr Ftu ' \ — ' " } f winn Oil • kill -- _ r Canopy cover Slope Floodplain Zomng 5 Transportation (Existing ) The Evans Spring property is bounded by 1-581 to the north,Cove Road re LEGEND and Andrews Road to the south, Hershberger Road to the west, and Norris Drive to the east.There is an existing interchange at the Valley 11, Lxxx owy r,„m.v. View Mall that has been planned with the opportunity to provide access i % to the Evans Spring property.A portion of this planning effort focuses i. 4°„ on traffic conditions and the potential impacts of that interchange and any proposed development to the surrounding roadway network based on various development options. natur, , The traffic conditions and impacts study documented existing trafficto conditions as of 2019 then projected conditions in 2045 with no changes to the site use or new transportation infrastructure (interchange). * Several build and no-build scenarios were analyzed that documented NI potential differences from the existing and projected existing conditions. The study made projections for the following scenarios. °9, .90 2045 No-Build Traffic Volumes Without the Full Interchange This projected future existing conditions with no interchange or Figure22045No Build Traffic Volumes development of Evans Springs, it considered the future growth rate As a note of comparison traffic volumes at the 19th Street a F of the population and the projected traffic associated with it, and how Andrews Road intersection were up to 4100 trips in the 2045 €i that was distributed through local streets without the Valley View No Build Scenario and 14,100 trips in the 2045 No Build with "'"" "", Mall Interchange completion. This was used to establish a baseline Interchange Scenario. • to compare differences when adding the interchange and proposed if,� ' development scenarios. , v .e• b� 2045 No-Build Traffic Volumes with the Full Interchange to This scenario examined projected existing volumes with the interchange ' �4 added and connected to 19th street. The projected volumes were compared to the 2045 existing conditions projections without the • x interchange. • ov too Figure 3 2045 No Build Traffic Volumes , with Interchange 6 Stormwater Conditions The headwaters of Lick Run begin in Roanoke County and proceeds from northwest to southeast along the 1-581 corridor. Recommendations This watershed drains 3,747 acres of 35% impervious land including the Roanoke Regional Airport, Valley View Mall, Evans • Place a conservation easement over the stream corridor. Spring, and then terminating at the confluence with Trout Run in • Locate a greenway in and along the easement. downtown Roanoke. Perform a stream restoration of the Lick Run channel and floodplain, including restoring natural sinuosity,flood storage, ,. �. ,, m0,. Lick Run is not a stable stream.The existing channel has significant revegetation,habitat creation of the flood plain and buffers. .,, s ,0 a bank erosion, and the channel in some areas has deepened and • Require the developer to partner with DEQ and the City for >'* 'vs� 4 '' widened.Tree roots are exposed,and the incising stream channel design and funding through a revenue sharing project. `' �_ '� has become disconnected from its floodplain. In addition, sewer • Adapt the city's stormwater pond to include current best y pipe has become exposed. practices including but not limited to energy dissipation with `�a ¢� ._/ ti plunge pool and forebay, infiltration, vegetated littoral areas, + £� at. \ -'�� Development of the Evans Spring area as proposed would level spreaders,controlled outfalls. f result in increased stormwater runoff as is typical when land • Meet the Virginia Runoff Reduction Method(VRRM)to minimize , :` is developed, however a holistic approach to stormwater and the impervious area and provide stormwater measures that • "' >' floodplain management could help achieve regulatory stormwater will disconnect the impervious area. , requirements and address the identified downstream risk. First, • Design the stormwater system to mitigate increase in runoff stormwater runoff would need to be managed in accordance with leaving the property due to the increased roof/impervious ' / the Virginia Stormwater Management Program to protect Lick areas. E 4 .,il' Run from further bank erosion, sedimentation and related loss • Integrate environmental sensitive site design, BMPS and LID 1 ' of aquatic ecosystem function. In particular, it is recommended techniques, in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater BMP ,. t .,�, Ho'' that all stormwater management be performed on-site rather than Clearinghouse. These may include permeable pavement, gala usingoff site compliance(i.e.water qualitytrading) programs to detention areas, forebays, raingardens, infiltration strips, y ram,_. P P 9 Y P '4 Legend x 1m 3-41.,q, the extent feasible. Flooding-related impacts are important at the bioretention swales,and level spreaders. 4, " P08nae i0'30CDMa Unt Cory p� site, but downstream impacts are relatively small due to the size • Design a treatment train for each subbasin. For instance, a . [ lwea v�4eenned t m levy end Crack Cornice IR�C)Coora� and existing development condition of the Lick Run watershed. rain garden to exfiltrate stormwater runoff generated by the M A' Importantprotections for the existingstream, floodplain, spring/ ro proposed development after first beingdirected through I Ides"�'Qe�`�`�""�B t P PP P P 9 FEMA FgtM Designations wetland and endangered species would be provisioned under a sediment forebay, and meeting the channel protection oo-'yam'.444, , Clean Water Act, National Flood Insurance Program, and requirements for any outfall/bypass flow. . gm t,....° '..,,, s Lock Run Stream and Trunk UM* Endangered Species Act permitting processes.If property owners • Identify and delineate all wetland and stream jurisdictional Conveyance Subtype _„. ze desired additional protections of the environmental assets on boundaries,per the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional —PennnaiSeeen n, `At this site,these areas could be placed in conservation easements requirements. CPlrone,•I ,,.3,-�,.6•e�.. M► 0 3 �� -MS•TNnt late which could generate tax deductions • Restrict construction within the wetland resource area or within the buffer zones to the resource areas. 7 Utility Infrastructure KEY Natural Gas I Local Counties Labels — SPnwteLine " SCleanout —WMain • WHysrant —Rrvera and Creeks • SPnvatoPo,nt • SManhole WVaull a There are a number of existing lines serving the area • WVault ,: a Percale SLateralLine WPnvateLine y ¢ i '' General Line SGravftyMa,n WPnvatePornt Minter „�'". . > ■ y. 't Ir surrounding the Evans Spring site.A two-inch gas mains are �^ � "" CASING In Use WServiceLine 4. Wvaive ' a t located on Top Hill Drive,Cove Road,Fairland Road,Sherman Drive, and Leon Street and could serve the site. The current pressure in this main is approximately 40-45 psi. In addition, lines on 16th Street and Andrews Road are currently being "k •�I ``a"•"ra a, upgraded to 2-inch plastic lines. f" • `` `` ® -• � f . Water and Sewer '' ° Western Virginia Water Authorit representatives and mapping " `"' available on the Western Virginia Water Authority website, e ,' ' e A*, , , and the capital projects listed in the 2023 Fiscal Year Budget document there are no major water or sewer projects planned "f - -. - k ` surrounding the site at this time. it j° '• " k, = a" ► k Recently the sewer main that runs through the Evans Spring '` f . ' site was relined and thus would not need to be replaced in the ' ' future with development of the site.There is an 18-inch line in the western portion of the site and a 24-inch line in the main ! • ', or" . portion of the site. i w..t Water service to the site can be provided via a number of • ` * sources and will be a matter of hydraulics when more specifics about the development are known.There are a number of lines ranging from 2 inches to 8 inches that could serve the site in the future.There are currently no pump stations near the site and none are planned. 8. 1 Market Conditions The demographic, housing, and real estate market conditions were 1 documented in context to how they relate to the future development ( / -\ I `� WppW °° ❑° of the Evans Spring site. This analysis was essential for evaluating a o d ❑❑ ❑❑ future development program for the subject property, based on recent \cr tVNt d Z ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑o economic and market trends. Based on this information, as well as a o n °❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ °❑ ❑° ❑❑ physical site evaluation and transportation analysis,the market study o tt _L_IL__JL provides a foundational basis for the proposed land development nknN. nItknrt program. The City of Roanoke Population change Roanoke is a market The subject property The current has experienced over the past of regional has competitive development Future housing demand was forecasted through the Year 2040. slow development decade has(3.4%) significance in advantages over pipeline includes growth since the has lagged behind Southwest Virginia, other comparable over 861 new multi- Estimates of the capturable retail demand by merchandise category for Year 2000,with the county(4.7%) and has a sites due to its family apartments, market area within a 5-mile, 10 mile, and 15 mile radius areas of the limited residential and the state(8.3%), commercial drawing interstate location which will increase and non-residential and real estate power extending 20 on a major the city's supply of Evans Spring site were forecasted as well.This study helps decision- development demand is similarly to 40+miles commuting route larger apartment added to the City's low complexes by 8.8% makers determine how many housing units and retail square footage supply should be included in the Evans Spring site development. A separate fiscal and economic impact analysis was completed to ` J evaluate the impacts associated with the conceptual land development plan. Household by Size by Tenure Change(2011-2021) Roanoke City,Virginia Key demographic observations include: 1,500 1,183 • The population is slowly growing. 1,000 595 • Much of the growth can be attributed to ages 55+and 65+. soo I 106 Mil 304 110 5 77 • The population is diversifying in terms of its racial and ethnic o — I — composition. This is typically a positive trend as it is usually (500) I ■ (116) (270) (85) (46) (87) associated with economic and social vitality. (1,000) (653) • Overall,owner occupied and family households are decreasing. (1,soo) 0,249) • Both owned and rented smaller and larger households have 1-person 2-person 3-person 4-person 5-person 6-person 7-or-more increased.This includesgains in 1,2,and 5-person households. household household household household household household person p household Most of the gains were in rented households. • Renter households are increasing. al Owner Household ■Renter Household • Education attainment levels are falling. Source.American community Survey and RKG Associates,Inc.,2023 Income levels are falling. Among renter households,households with one person,two persons,five persons,and seven or more persons have all seen • gains during the decade of 2011-2021 in Roanoke. 8.2 Market Analysis Findings Data from Mood 's Anal tics, a commercial real Apartment InventoryTrend Apartment Market, VAcy Rate 12-2022 Y Y p Roanoke Market,VA 2012-2022 estate data analytics firm in the U.S. were analyzed 11,000 Roanoke Market,VA 2012-2022 5.0% to assess the existing market performances and 10,500 "% 4.0% 4.4% 3.7% fi% fi% conditions of the apartment, retail, and office sectors ,_10,000 3.0% % ,% 24% in Roanoke. The data suggests a positive outlook 9•5009,0500 ' 2.0% 1.0% for the apartment sector, mixed performances of o.o% the retail sector, and a stagnant office market in 8,500 ,..1, ,� ,,, 1h ,b ,� 10 ,,C1 yo ,y. , O O� a O,y O,b 9 O e f e; '" .1, ,Lo qs, 1,, 1, ,y° ,1p 1° ,1° ,1° e1° the Roanoke market between 2012 and 2022. Key " " " " " " " " " " " observations include the following: Apartment Net Absorption Trend Apartment Asking Trend 500 Roanoke Market,VA 2012-2022 Roanoke Market,VA 2012-2022 Retail Market 400 $1,500 3Because of its regional significance, Roanoke 200 5$1,000 $698 $710 $727 $728 $73fi $780 $806 8824 $827 $920 $9e6 has the potential to capture additional retail 200 mild ! . $500 100so demand over the next 10 years, as consumer • _ demand grows (300,000 to 400,000 SF). See 0 .ti ,', -.1. 44, -.9 ♦% 41, ,q ,yo , titi € ,yo^� 15, ,yo`' 19 ,i9 ,yo`� ,yo^° 19 do"° ,yo"^ ,y°titi details for Retail Merchandise Category. above do yo do yo yo yo yo yo —Asking Rent/Unit The above tables highlight apartment sector trends in Roanoke between 2012-2022 Multi-Family Market Multi-family has been experiencing growth Retail Merchandise Category Building SF since 2000 but will see another 860 new Furniture&Home Furnishings Stores 52,025 apartments built in over the next five years. Lawn&Garden Equip&Supply Stores 40,115 This market group could absorb another 695 Specialty Food Store 22,691 apartments by 2030. Health&Personal Care Stores 23,312 Gasoline Stations 58,141 Missing Middle Housing Jewelry,Luggage&Leather Goods Stores 23,148 Missing middle housing (duplex — 5-units) is Department Stores 97,059 under-represented in the city housing supply, Other General Merchandise Stores 170 Florists 767 accounting for only 9.4%of the housing supply. Office Supplies,Stationery&Gift Stores 1,575 Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers 3,706 Office Market Special Food Services 5,876 The local office market is struggling with very Drinking Places-Alcoholic Beverages 44,895 Restaurants/Other Eating Places 40,674 Total-Supportable Building Square Footage 414,157 The above table highlights the 2028 projected gap in supportable retail square footage by category 9. 1 Public/Neighborhood Input Community engagement for the Evans Spring project was co- The age group of respondents was widely distributed across ages ordinated by Downtown Economics, LLC of Richmond, Virginia. 21 to 61+with 57.6% of the respondents being over age 41. 22% Downtown Economics engaged the services of Community En- of the respondents were African American. gagement and Charrette Associates ("CE&CA") of Richmond, Virginia. While this process was a successful and informative community engagement launch,the CE&CA team recommends the development The Process and implementation of an ongoing community engagement effort. This will serve to gain additional citizen input on the Evans Springs CE&CA employed several tools to gather information from the project, but also on several other city programs and projects as public: well. • An online survey(350 responses) • Several focus groups. ONLINE • Key informant interviews G SURVEY • Door-to-door interviews • Hard copy surveys distributed through the community and G RESPONSES: girrillt at meetings • Drop boxes for the hard copy surveys. 350 4#14v • Telephone voice mail line • March 9 community meeting with nine focused discussion EVANS SPRING tables Roanoke Area-66% • June 22 community update meeting with open comment SW VA-15% 21-30 ^ and questions and answers period 12.9% LOCATION Maryland-10% Over 61Richmond-4% It is important to note that while the online survey uncovered a 23s ' Other VA-3% significant amount of data, the CE&CA team was able to garner 50% Other States-2% in-depth information from focus groups, key informant interviews and one-on-one interviews, as those formats allowed for follow 1111CNki AGE GROUP RACIAL IDENTITY up discussions and interviews. 81% of the survey respondents 31-40 25% were from the Roanoke or southwest Virginia area, while the 51-60 29.4% Nit;. 7 remainder were from Maryland, Richmond, other Virginia 14.1% 22% localities and other states. 13% 1% 0% 41-50 oo�ya0 et�0ac OLr¢k �ac0 1 Pa 20% • Cs APR Median Age=44 `oa 4 14 9.2 Public/Neighborhood Input Predominant themes of the public input included; Several"non-negotiable"items were expressed by the public. ' Addressing natural habitat They are included the diagram below: 1; Requests including preserving the sites mature tree canopy, • protecting wildlife, protecting and preserving the waterways Do not Do not create a link from 581 into the neighborhood and protecting the floodplain. ' f Housing Do not Do not take any housing from current neighborhood residents rt Housing themes including creating ecologically friendly and affordable housing and creating small footprint homes, rathera Do not Do not run traffic through neighborhood than high rise apartments. itke Commercial development Create Create strategies to mitigate gentrification Several requests came up in the commercial category,generally Optional Development Plan showing Top Hill Drive undeveloped participants preferred small, locally owned businesses and entrepreneurship opportunities, restaurants and other similar food related businesses, a neighborhood grocery store, and a Preserve Preserve the tree canopy theater. Recreation Protect Protect wildlife There was a lot of input regarding open space and recreation.Top themes and requests included, create a walkable environment, Protect and Protect and preserve the waterway(especially Lick Run) provide a nature center, create a natural swimming area, preserve development of parks and trails connecting to the neighborhood, and providing child, adult, and senior activities with the park Protect Protect the floodplain system. Traffic Traffic impacts was the most galvanized topic. Participants expressed much concern and requested that traffic be directed away from the neighborhood, that there be no link from 581 to the neighborhood, and that local roadways be repaired. Overall, at the community meetings there was significant and vocal opposition expressed against any development on the property, other than continuing to build neighborhood and open spaces. 10 Land Use Objectives Several land use objectives were developed by the consultant. considered, which precluded a "no development" option. The These best aligned the multiple interests including private objectives below were used to guide the plan concept option landowners, developers, city governance, and neighbors. development. Neighborhood concerns and requests were directly addressed or mitigated. It is important to note that requests that did not address the needs of the multiple stakeholders were not d► , ! ' 4 » 4f -* f / .i % 40 l, �� l i,iii r!w i _ - ." LIMIT TRAFFIC PRESERVE PROTECT PROVIDE ACCESS PROVIDE INCREASE PROVIDE LOCAL IMPACTS NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT Provide neighborhood RECREATION HOUSING BUSINESS Buffer Infrastructure Buffer denser land use Preserve Evans Spring access AMENITY OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY Eliminate through Transition density Protect floodplain Improve pedestrian Provide public open Respect scale and Provide opportunity connection access space character for local Respect scale& Enhance riparian entrepreneurship Improve character environment Provide park and Provide park amenity Limit&buffer density neighborhood streets greenway connections Integrate Evan Springs Provide smaller scale Provide neighborhood Integrate existing Provide buffers focused goods and Calm traffic open space Enhance habitat single family services Integrate multimodal Reduce/eliminate Provide for multiple Provide small grocery through traffic income,age,and store lifestyle 11 Land Use Program Recommendations The consultant team was asked to develop a program for development that could be performed by the private { THE CORNER "... development industry and that would be responsive to local Ri R11 r� Restaurant and regional housing and commercial market conditions and • $u • & < ;-,. toot. R -lotel trends. The program would be integrated on the site in a way �'. ?BUS{PCSS d - _ that also responded to neighborhood needs, City planning Habitat — Destin�qn requirements, environmental features, and jurisdictional = -'�k,e,v 4 .`+ ^s"< .,. , requirements. 14 < 1 Various yield studies and concept plan versions were created &Trait - „; t�It 11 to incorporate the land use objectives. During this work more -� ; - kc �! specific configurations of access, open space protection, land i, g- II ii- ' 1 s. use type and locations were developed. The result defined rf the various developable land bays on the site and their type and intensity of use. The following development program was devised as the optimal program which both fit into the „„�,,,,Ey, context of the site and also responded directly to market �p�•» • ,. demand and return on investment for a proforma performed • ,,, by private development interests. The program also provided "� ��� " Fl00DPL '�+ as • the most revenue generation through tax base, jobs, and / mod::-m, . -+ $ \, '• other economic activity for the city, thus offsetting potential --IN---F-.Q "` costs related to partnering on infrastructure, amenities, and .. . _;_��_"A. ' 1 Boa �� '` � �� -w`x ���������� � environmental improvements. "'� . .. The program was focused on a mix of single family and i I r-M; . J multifamily residential (including missing middle housing �'� • <-V 1 ' ' • K types) and commercial uses that could fit into the context of oq ). % .t ,-- both large scale and smaller scale commercial business types. . %' •• ;� .Jy, - mot' This provided larger destination type retail complemented by ...AOxrEnw F .,P14 `e- ..,.• \ �,..a various businesses and services. This included a business °" class hotel, various retail shops, services (day care, dry ? '.ter.~ ,4, • 4...... • '.. cleaner) restaurants and an assisted living facility. The sj ar variety insured a diversity of business size scales as well i—i.,,eeCommerce, r--.-.....+' as opportunity toplan the development in a waythat was in =Neen°°'n°°°Ft""`e '� P P Y P o Mixed Density kes�/en„� substantial conformance with the City of Roanoke's Urban O Single S3meyN9s/en°a' o Pan.OW Spy Design Manual and Street Design Guidelines. ®Fisp ,6Q' 4•Propose/veh,cle Connection 12 Land Use Scenarios and Options Site access, proximity the interstate,Andrews Rd. NW and adjacent Each concept also includes the following: neighbors define appropriateness of the type and intensity of land uses. In each land use scenario, more intense commercial uses are • Buffers against residential areas Public Park spaces jj located near the interstate, and at grades separated from neighbors. • Extension of the Lick Run greenway. •~•_—.. " -' Neighborhood scale commercial and more intense housing density • Neighborhood access to streets and amenities 11, ,, „ a are located near access to higher capacity streets and adjacent • Public trail access �""g services(school). Mixes of neighborhood scale housing are located • Business incubator space ....... adjacent to surrounding neighborhoods with an appropriate transition 'fit f of density. Traffic connections between the commercial area and the local streets "` r I ',. s ' - could be controlled using one-way streets. These connector streets will ,, A " Cd,n, ,' LPDA developed and studied multiple development scenarios. The allow 1 way traffic and emergency access, while preventing traffic from ,>.- 4), - illustrations show alternate ways to accomplish various degrees of the commercial district from entering the planned neighborhood. .- The option above focuses commercial development info Land Bay B which opens up opportunities site development. for Office/Commercial in Land Bay A. Key differences in the concept scenarios address various alternate --.. outcomes which help to illustrate the impacts and benefits of each — scenarios,these include, { ; j t 1. Connected or non-connected interchange access. •' 2. Alternate layouts that do or don't integrate the Top Hill Dr. �,,. ' �,,_ ,, a. subdivision (note this is based on weather or not residents .... .; . • - , choose to sell their property or not). _________ , i , 3. Alternate densities for land bays A and C which help to offset . �` w $ ' costs of infrastructure and amenity. ^. "� The option below does not have an interchange connection to Valley View Blvd.and is almost entirely v).�`,, residential with the exception of a small area of neighborhood commercial near Andrews 4. Alternate uses for land bay E (single family residential vs. natural open space) - , - ,,, , -.-. This option preserves Top Hill Drive and provides ample residental units while still ;5. Various building product mix, building pattern, road network providing commercial uses �• arrangements and densities. ` ' 'may, All options preserve the flood plain, steep slopes and vegetation !eke associated with Lick Run and Evans springs. In all cases the buffers ,.:;,' " t' ,- ;4 ,- from the center of lick run are 50'or more in compliance with the local ` x Lick Run Watershed protection ordinances. :• -S . -. 13. 1 Recommended Development Plan ' INTERST \ I ` ATE 581 �� \ ._ . __i ,!/ -_— RINGI i / - INTERSTATE 581 �' • -- __ — ' 4 / .-..•..... ,. • A • • •1 'r \ `\ x \ •••••••• • •- E yGQW�o� I -- li csI a• `e\ \\ \ ,\ • 4 •••••••••• �'' �/l ` :'� Y.I : z MEADOWVIEW DR NW . �` � •• •• . ``��.i %.. a • ! ` • $r I ■*. r KIRKLAND DR NW r-.. I •,,i o .e...,..-. �..KRKLAND DR NW I �a',,,j' » `�� --- ---_- --- '- i - -� 1 �� B OROWAY OR NW 1 L -�-. 1 . i 1 tt• ":"'.': /A., ' ..'74:1 ..14';,1' ./.':'' t I I 1 r y i V9r yy .� 1T.'• • <� 1 �� ) _.. �_� �', • �Vr 11 ,. \ / • ` Whops rfs or hareditedaccess street, ip r- 0. " by pedestrians, j t r Y .�-_ 1 \ / r I rrood e,access 'C IyL�/l/{J' . � pNtn L: _ KL, � < �\ •r � � " W5 ROAD NW "o t�l 1 1 I 1 1 I rr r-k, �� 1 oaenv r� �, �� v0*� ,�• This option balances commercial and I { 1 r� »�� .V ,moo / \.�,,�� \ - --- - residential land uses, preserves a large - ` -4 + �- , " g �� t i_ i Ir ��, o� pay ,� 11�1111�� �, p spacey : open system and maximizes I I � � 'l»TL t' ✓A-- v LPN a91�, development yield creating dynamic ---- _�i L 1 J r C d6.-r- _T_-_� m SN�� PNoaoi Yield Totals 1 s+ Commercial Building(sf): 570,000 sf spaces to live,work,and play. r 1 ' /1_{' err ,_< �SpoPON Multi-family Residential(3-4 story): 351 units i- - 1 _{ I I' ` , Q. ,!, yaoc, Single Family Attached: 210 units - _- f a _ t __I ' r Z Single Family Detached: 52 units �_I �_ J '� 1 r rl fir.. / Total Residential Unit Yield: 613units" r.-- �� Vt -'\ /�`/, �P ��� 'Note'.Residential product types may vary based on market need. jc'1�its: ._ �_. I 1 - i t t T om. y� \ ✓ / / .� ( A, e ,, zoo' 400r.N "Note:Per the City's recommendation,the single-family residential units originally shown in land bay E were converted to Natural Conservation area.As a result,the residential unit totals do not match the recommended development program totals listed in the Economic Impact Analysis. 13 .2 Optional Development Plan , INTERSTATE 587 � < i..__. -1 RING RD NW /22� ��y/y/� - - �� INTERSTATE 581 .....:I:4,14i,',,.4ii--, ,-__;_i,,,7_,4,7/,:ws-;:7":7„/:4::_ _ ,, . ,,, r, $ ! $i 1 w _ z � � m • $� i ji. s ` * a Ns l ,.,_ __ p :� MEADOWVIEW DR NW a., N„. • N. _ • r _ _ Q y 1 \ 1 KIRKLAND DR NW t- ' 1 ,sa„»�u. ..�.+e...:.w >.','�s�..• �v N. / i t� M' O _ KIRKLAND DRDNik ilw_ I i ORDWAY DR NW t I , • I. - d �� y *� - >/ y't ',Wenner(or Limued access sweet, ' Y t. �` \ ss which Is shared by pedestrians, 1 ' ess ( I' - j �1 bicyclists,and still provides aoo • t J v �� �. P� _ -��, /- • %• for EMS and service vehicles. — _ _,� a. :!1 ` F �j \\ • y� y TREWS cow Y - I a. �, ` \ -' `pH � / s AND -�—�-S o _. '' �_ '� ce\- ..'.M� ';,- .„, � � I a /.l...i—,,, MONT DR NW r.__.-IT ' SPR\N `,..��\ 11� \ I" ,e, ' This option preserves Top Hill Drive, I L_ - \ °� � Ar'_ '� � • yy: \ ���t„ v ,_�r- balances commercial and residential 14 I I( �r f c, s1������ -.\y �' land uses,preserves a large open space 1��1 J h_� 4,,_ y� �,"N i aoP° t i y .;RDNW _ _ F S�0 ,� - Yield Totals system, and creates dynamic spaces to - 7 ', _.L�_ i y y p -� (� - NN Commercial Building(sf): 415,000 sf live,work, and play. rT.'F .T r ` ' r�� ROPE Multi-familyResidential 3 4 stony): 351 units I t-� Li 1 t s k , ( ry) { � - ( `� �., 1 �pC'" j //\ -' Single Family Attached: 239 units r— � i -1a i ,� Single Family Detached 52 units 1 t } — —+ J - Total Residential Unit Yield: 642 units** i J `� I-- t --....1 I ! ' I -A \ '\// -, "` X• pQ,� e •` Zp�dep 'Note:Res;dentral product types may vary based on market need Ir'li F.n—_1—, r__.. 11� - I F •!!! It,___j T-r-T�. Y' /_ z'/i.�� .."LP�; "Note.Per the City's recommendation.the single-family residential units originally shown in land bay E were converted to Natural Conservation area.As a result,the residential unit totals do not match the recommended development program totals listed in the Economic Impact Analysis. 13.3 Optional Development Plan The Top Hill Drive neighborhood is private paths and sidewalks. Ise '.. property and can only be developed if all current . Integration of park land and access to open O ' landowners wish to sell theirproperty. In / pastspace, park and Greenway amenity. �:� development efforts landowners had contracted to I A. sell contingent on a successful rezoningprocess 1I i T g Impacts to the yield are evident and reduce the % s- and for a specific price, presumably above fair commercial yield by approximately 155,000 sf i J market value. ° I ' or 27/°. This affects the potential positive fiscal r' /, -, impacts of the preferred concept. A second fiscal k t. It is possible that some or one of the property impact analysis was not performed however, in . G` owners does not sell their property and that a removing 27% percent of the commercial space different developmentplan configuration would p g this would equate to a similar reduction economic have to accommodate the existing neighborhood. impact. On the fiscal side the impacts could be # i This can be done in a way that integrates the more because this would reduce the revenue neighborhood into the infrastructure, amenity producing land uses and somewhat increase the -' and opens pace without unduly impacting share of residential development. This would i1' the neighborhood. The rezoning process and reduce revenues that are currently subsidizing �® resulting plans will have to address current zoning the residential service demand costs. This would k `�, requirements related to differences in adjacent undermine the economic development rationale 4,, t land use. for the project. It is likely that the plan could be reconfigured to gain back some commercial yield '0. '� This option illustrates how the Top Hill Drive through vertical construction involving different .,/' �`,�\ neighborhood could be integrated into the proposed scale uses as well as use of areas designated for !r % •�` "� ' mixed use development. The plan incorporates parks, apartments, and mixed use. If larger retail • `� �►��' �^ .i.s:, , 011 - .71, various benefits and mitigate measure including; • stores are desired, they would likely be limited in " 'SAIL" 4" size. In either case the key tenets of the proposed , • Preservation of the wooded buffer along transportation plan will need to be met, namely, the ,/ Lick Run. limited access connection from the interchange to • Transitioning street hierarchy to reduce the neighborhood. traffic impacts at intersection of Top Hill ,• 44 Drive and the new Fields Street. ." • Transitioning land use density through use The plan vignette above shows the existing Top Hill Drive Neighborhood.A so landscape buffer provides a transition horn the res uences of lower intensity uses (street right of way, on Top Hill Drive to the adjacent commercial and residential uses. Access from Land Bay B to the adjacent residential areas is limited to pedestrian only and therefore will not pose vehicular traffic impacts to the neighborhood. parking) and vegetative buffers. • Creation of 50' landscape buffers adjacent to non-residential land uses. • Integration of and access to pedestrian 14 Land Bay Plan General Recommended uses are as follows: , gTF . o • Land Bay A: Larger footprint commercial, f� destination retail,office,research. d • Land Bay B: Larger footprint commercial, 5' retail, mixed use commercial, hotel, services, business incubators,parks and open space. ) ' INTERSTATE 591 • Land Bay C:Multifamily,light mixed-use retail, RINGRDWO business incubator, assisted living, parks and ^'^+,,, // ._-- ♦4` _ - INTERSTATE SP, open space. r, $ - ,...,,. .. • Land Bay D:Townhouses,detached dwellings, ,;.`! $ �_ $: �,,r -� • parks and open space. - .-- - - - °mm. - -"- A\ A -_ �`- • Land y ea , z Land Bay E:F atMultifamily,ural ervsin le ation rdetached ai - ;' .r" ,`; •o� N \ err • y g +:'�;ti MEADCWWIEW DR NW Z. 1.♦,: t� �� r lI .-� f �.:�rWr �•"� dwellings, parks and open space. 'ww -_ 5 . .` .,r' ,I. •v 4 w - rII ,�... • Lick Run GreenwayCorridor: HRNAN^DRNW • F i� 4- ; > Dedicated water quality easements,vegetative i RR AND DRnw � `it ,; ' buffers, stream and flood plain restoration, , !i W. ..` yr B ONONAv DR Nw / 1I •> .��♦ 1 ♦� parks and open space. / - ., f' ,♦♦ r ,t \ ORDWAY DR NW ♦ I ' I I ✓ V ♦♦I a., o,, .. _ - ss �i mpooN �I --- s N m D i C w Dat ,,N,,0 a SPµNGH�QR ` . TRLIADNT DR NW (. Z s CCVE RID NW , v'm SEP�t oPE1,`''''''' NOP o' `- `,- I -A I-1 , 1 T ; T 'SR r. , 1 C I i I i r r -' I - 1, 11 ,' t ,_ 1 t a, { /- - Y N { a i `. t F1r a ,4 > r- -- :,! ir7— tr1FT � r j\ ,1 <i,,, ` jr L , C \ i " . -a ii 1-', ' i tJ. L.- t 1.t"" pp I G 'l '' --r ` '--V '''"' C''-''' -', 21 _� _� _ L. 1�_ . -I fi-i,4 . `',i : <\„ < , 22 15 Transportation Plan Site access and connectivity defines the scale of development opportunity on the Evans Spring site. , Access from the interstate is required for any significant I * Map Key development to be feasible from both an economicmilm Highway Interchange traffic, and a neighborhood impact standpoint. It's also Printery Circulation a, necessary to provide alternate forms of ingress and Secondary Circulation egress for emergency services and evacuations. Access Illnini All YC``at atton to the local streets is required to facilitate neighborhood NTERSIATE ys Multi-Use PAIR .............J a RMI,H°NW Wowed Access access, local destination travel and multimodal access, • Lannon to pedestrians r , and emergency services. Access to the adjacent I INTERSTATE MI -- �., neighborhood streets is ideal to connect neighborhoods, - r_.,_.._..----..----•—.. -„_.` A. amenities,and services. •�. F 1- � Q I A 4i ± `�•1 It is important that interstate access be limited to /' - I = - I M,,,` v.eWsiva �, the portions of the commercial development and not .; 1, ,�aaev •1r..�._..... '0riV1Ew Rw NY, connected to the neighborhoods. However, access ...� I ` " needs to be provided from the neighborhoods to portions RRRIAp°RNVJ N - I of the development,specifically the proposed residential I E neighborhood and the services,and retail,and business g .--• B �• OROW'AY ORNW, !!! incubators. •� (•• • The Valley View interchange and access to ,,. /• < The fundamentals of the access and transportation land bays A and B include various infrastructure •) ', F e`d`s< • plan are built on these best practices. As shown in the improvements. I •i' c> a illustration,the proposed hierarchy of access and streets •�• includes: These include: �,•✓ .` I) ( •�; • Completed Valley View interchange, including •�. �• • Completed Valley View Interchange and access �'• road to land bays A and B. diverging diamond lanes. •\•• .•_'-/•• • Internal primary streets within land bays A and B. A four-lane bridge spanning• the Lick Run flood �,t, • Internal secondary streets within Land bays D,E, plain. a and F. • Main 4 lane median divided access road parallel "; ;; • Secondary connections to Andrews and 19th and to Lick Run. Signalized intersection providing access to land C potential Andrews/19th intersection Roundabout. a6' • Tertiary traffic calmed neighborhood connections bay B. to Spring Hill Dr.,Sherman Dr,Andrews Road NW, Merged lanes and 2 lane access road. ' Kirkland Drive, Meadowview Dr NW Brooklyn Dr. 2 lane road bridge spanning the flood p• lain a 0 - °r or inn et access s ree,w is Is s ared NW,and Glenroy St.NW. accessing land bay A. by pedestrians, MS andpse Bice veh cle5d still provides access 23 16 Open Space & Buffer Plan Landscape and buffering will be a critical part of the development of Evans Spring.As a high-visibility site in the City,buffering will be critical in providing privacy Map Key p for residents of this community and surrounding 103-Year Floodplain communities.Businesses will benefit from accessibility —Nalorsl Open Spece and visibility from 1-581 and Andrews Road. mom Gfeen Space Amenlry 25'Buller Potentlel Sound Wall Streets should be designed with street trees and 50'Rlpanan Buller sidewalks according to the City's Street Design L_ Guidelines. Buffering and transitional zones to r-nSMOF FAi I surrounding properties will maintain existing I .. ..-.—.• �� vegetation where practical and be supplemented with -�. native vegetation. / �[: _ � _-- ",4e 4. ` >_ ,.,��/ 7. • ,:-]L.--5 • I g -. �L Because of the limited access to street networks, - --, i s ' 41-••�•.�•l.1r 1 NENOOMVIEW off NW " _ _mom Ns the adjacency to lower density single family T••—•• --.r Natural r Conservation t neighborhoods, proximity to sensitive environmental ...,,..•• i resources, and the smaller land bay size, the uses ,7. ,-- , a)ii \ Area KwK:nNr.nu n:: u ' 4111 of land bay E are limited to lower density uses that 5 A B / potentially do not create much return on investment. �� As such,it is the recommendation of the City that land �`� ONp"^rJNN " • bay E is designated as natural conservation area. -- '` �r%� 1 3 it ;'' l 40 The Plan's park system is composed of small ____---- -----1 •, / neighborhood parks, greenways with trailheads, n t ,..,cr - .. v.� n\D C `• and urban pocket parks. Neighborhood parks serve TREMONTORNA s`P"" �. the recreational and social focus of neighborhoods �• 5 ��••11ie and provide playgrounds, picnic facilities, and open T `••^••. • spaces. Greenways are linear parks that include COcEroNV+ °�E�°��� �'•��� n•ws" trailheads with benches, signage, and other site �E"5� " furnishings. Urban pocket parks are small parks adjacent or in between buildings and offer features open Space Data such as seating,and greenery. Project Acreage:151.72 Acres Fd+OP 100-YR Floodplain Open Space:40*Acres Land Bay E Natural Conservation Area:5.8*Acres 100-YR Floodplain+Natural Open Space+Land Bay E: 71.51iAcres a mn. Boa'0 17 Grading Plan In general the site's natural topography slopes gently / ± `'fir' '' / - --�- from the upland areas to the North and South of Lick ' ak. _ -- p ) 4''- ' Run and transition to steeper slopes associated with -;\ 14, �.\ 4- rsc `'Fy Map Key l��l r 4 ' T the flood plain corridor. Much of the existing upland • _ 1 -.,;-'`a'; ab. ,- ?4,( "- _ ',__;-"t.- ill'Proposed Contour ;' areas have been previous impacted by past clearing ` ° i; ; Proposed Ret Wall ` I "' and development activities. %';/ ' °°".°",."°°�Grade 11 The proposed general grading scheme will involve r "'$'^", �[ n // iiiI:, \ creating consistent slope planes and grade breaks to ; /any (( , `- _. -� 2"'� -;�- ;-= \, ' -- --- Y� gently transition grades from the high points on site 1�� =ERSAE:,, r' i _ to the edges of the Lick Run flood plain corridor and -``i •i'••/ _ _..._. _.._ + ` - ;' its vegetative buffers. Pockets of flatter and concave ,", .•� F topography which transition upland area to natural ,r I A '1 drainages,are best suited for stormwater management 7,, .,�- -- ' measures. / ~� The mass grading plan transitions grades across land N „•,' _�1, 1 bays D to B from approximately elevation 1090 to J r ' , ,Afy - _ _, I t, elevation 1030 with slopes from 1.5 to 5%and grade 'w,'' d r .-. B /• breaks and slope transitions to natural grades on the \� -- N i — ;I=� ,.° =- •� (•� ; �7^\\ • outer edges of the land bays.Retaining walls will likely -/ 'i ',, / /' , �/ y- °F, /• // \ \ be needed to realize the land bay configurations and r 'I/ w - /' r -�, (', ��: (% to protect wooded buffers, these will be associated dam' „ - , / l - �. •0.°• ,` \ \ with the North edges of land bays B, and D. = .. % ( � a ' • \ .�. / ' v v Y vIs I . 'PEW* L V\ � l✓' .."-/ \ ) / ) r I '1\ ), •'am••F• NENNEDY 25 18 Stormwater Plan The proposed development will meet the Virginia ,'W•'-' / -- ' Runoff Reduction Method (VRRM) and aim �� i' �� ��J� !\� , - '`,�` a !„ to minimize the impervious area and provide ti ra' ,N �k ���� ��, ,� a e� i Map Key . stormwater measures that will disconnect the ,-Ir = \' )y t`'-- ,� t, , / Stormwater BMP impervious area. In addition,the proposed system __, '-.71,, `; u i; — 110Integrated BMP , I, will be designed to mitigate increase in runoff �' t �_y,"' , S'a,mRa,laal°^Area ) '' leaving the property due to the increased roof/ •* = ,\_\t4,4 I`, _ ° impervious areas.When possible,environmentally "Sr"rtm, ,--- -� >- J ,--` �' r sensitive site design and LID techniques will ,y _ y -. :-; Fs �� " €ems �� be used in the planning of the project. No Y i. \\, - t\ _ �- - \T!H--J +_- '-- _, k -yiIFABTATE Se construction should take place within the wetland 71l $ resource area or within the buffer zones to the a -� i i �.• resource areas. The project will include a number Ii'_� /- +, A '\ of BMP's to manage stormwater generated from , �� --- ___\ • I •�•It =, / �'� the development such as permeable pavement ��,; �� ..__.�,.� M w `V��_�-��.j___ �- detention areas,forebays,rain gardens,infiltration strips, bioretention swales, and level spreaders. "N.,ciuinnR,Ay, 4= _ ' �• These controls will be designed in accordance r' I'""t/ 1 ' - with the Virginia Stormwater BMP Clearinghouse. . , 7` �• An example of the stormwater approach would be , .-- �`�/' --- �.•� tI to design a treatment train for each subbasin. For ,, ) ' _-___ instance, a rain garden to exfiltrate stormwater I17 I (is ,- J ( ,� f runoff generated by the proposed development __�- 1 < I. after first beingdirected through a sediment �-' !�L= ' ' '�• \� �� � � forebay, and meeting the channel protection =r, ._ ,, /, �, I) c . requirements for any outfall/bypass flow. ;>'' �,/ -1 v; 1 - i ( • � , \��i--5 t ra w Nt�s I // J• F CP E� NENNEOY 4 I 19 Parking Plan Parking is typically provided based on the use and the The reduced parking areas could then be utilized for other environmental best practices including but not amount of parking required for that use,which correlates limited to reduction of development footprint,integration of stormwater infiltration and storage,tree canopy with level of activity,overlap of patron visitation,number areas,and general parks and open space. Map Key ; of employees,and other factors. Based on this a parking Off Street Parking Pi g ratio is defined to be provided per occupied square foot Roanoke has no minimum parking requirements,so parking ratios will need to be established through the ry , -=- on.sl—1 Pat-g of space(1 space per 250 square feet). Parking ratios adopted MXPUD development plan. Parking should be calculated based on actual need to ensure the may also involve designation of spaces in relationship to parking proposed is limited to what is necessary for typical operations. capacity or occupancy,which is often the case for uses R dial such as restaurants,movie theaters,and hotels. w � inlERS'AM,51 Proposed parking areas(including dedicated and shared "' _ lots,on street pull in and parallel parking)were distributed ,� _ _ f'f J; in quantity and proximity based on the proposed land x r u.w V I t . A `••, - office, and services that create overlaps will require Mtn - '°° / .a�i"e ,.., m.a '' e+cammnEtiv OR nu. t Iaao higher parking ratios. �rwFSir KIflKIAVg Ufi VW w 1 The adjacent table illustrates the parking ratios used and i 1 K'RKIAMDURNG I e e. parking required and provided for each land use type. ""` ....-; B ` ,nW e,. spun wt nealaenaw Generally, in the commercially designated areas ratios emr, 6e.d. a..dUMW S•-«Memos «w nW t r 1eWWY Proposed OUse •Wd lsll ♦ioldGm ) 0.4260•1 some/ added :.IRt[i of 1/200 or more were achieved. In the multifamily , . ; • areas, 1.75 to 2 spaces per unit was achieved. The Meosi0lleeSeeCM 160000 600 900 General f e,tlai 20000 100 100 •/. resulting parking quantities meet and exceed the general Co •Gomel REF! standards of the real estate community and will exceed GrwaGameraal "°°°° ,ea 00 ,i• nwawwnd6iymlow Ge.nw[1Y • • ` ` what may actually be required by actual use and times �ewRee,ne, 100 50 �� D C �. of use and considering implementation of best practices. «a^ ^«R-*R.� 192 =5 °,a 10 40 \ ,' �camle+r c.elr 5,OW Best practices include but are not limited to a custom gemW , ••� .•�• •. 'llllllllt�S.1,FomR R.00hal 29 M1y .of.' c parking plan based on actual use,shared parking,time 2a.".......(1nz..,.d« ••....... .�--�• of use designation, multimodal and pedestrian access, t a�,.dTe.e...'2�._2, '« ss s"`"� ,, aleM.W 1-N relegated parking,and on street parking. 015.e �em se 99 's''' Neosiplsim >5 42151E4e1l: 570,000 422 2.500 556 2.612 When implementing best practices in the commercial Esamed Canen.rWOaces, aesIdenlW 7 P4• areas,it is likely that a parking ratio of 1/250-400 would �M Prom*Me Geld wed Mated Repulsed Pro*. F,' Oesideselol be adequate.The pedestrian and multimodal accessibility Canape Gaut.Hernel 52_ 3 say imams Mon.W«dl 66 provided in the proposed plan should also reduce actual .1.*Malanerdfd'al0e'1 160 2.31 1a 1, vehicle trip impacts and resulting parking demand. ~«0Subtotal 312 r� Meal Cemne,eW Si 570,000 5F 7500 rarllNdenwluMls 661 mks 27 20. 1 Street Sections Q•� Typical section for Valley View Boulevard Extension - Public Street sections depicted here show the street designs recommended within the proposed development. Emphasis is placed on pedestrian safety and the \ walking experience when designing the street section. Continuous sidewalk separating the pedestrian from travel ways incorporating a planted buffer strip or "verge" is the key to promote walkability throughout ,;. . the project. These sections along with Roanoke Street Design Guidelines should guide the streetscape '�' design throughout Evans Spring. Where Virginia ' I' . , Department of Transportation (VDOT) or other local . codes modify these standards, such codes should L be considered and their impacts vetted through the 1'// 5' / 6' , / 12' / 1,, / 16' / 13' / 12' / , 6' / //1 ,°,EALALH ,„L.,P''2.5' tRAVEL LANE I HAVEL'ANE MEL,AN IRAVEL LANE NAVEL,ANE 2_.5' LE,,STALL' ',HARED U,E PA,EI City of Roanoke Department of Planning, Building & Development in cooperation with the developer. 100 R.O.W. SECTION A-1 Streets and rights-of-ways were laid out to disperse traffic,to provide appropriate scale,and infrastructure meeting the City of Roanoke's Urban Design Manual and Street Design Guidelines. The illustrations show A•2 Typical section for Commercial Corridor Collector Street- Public potential typical cross sections for Primary,Secondary, and Tertiary streets. I ,` .. ' rao , o , 4 , 5' / 6' r! / 10' / 10' / 8' SLDE✓,fLn TE, ✓,..E,_..r,E iPnvE.LANE i(y.,.EL LA E -AP,I A,LANE / 59.00'R.O.W. SECTION A-2 28 20.2 Street Sections B.1 Typical section for Neighborhood Local Street- Private (With parallel parking on both sides) C) 0 ,01.07.' JJ ' 'NN Aif tt;t Section B.1 is a neighborhood local street that prioritizes +' r' ' the pedestrian access through providing on-street parking, clear .' ; °F movement zones widened sidewalk and seatingareas. -.� '''' �- r ..,r '''-*/' ri I► Fes,.... �r4 a ; :'- ' 1 r rrIIEEE • IS Typical section for Neighborhood Local Street- Private (With parallel parking on one side) - t :S 11 .gyp.'L y'_ ' '':?.:C.(.0 ; ` ■ A, 0.5' 0.5' 1'// 5' / 6' # 11' / 11' / 8' // 6' / 5' // 1' fi,IJFWALK Lill STRIP IRAVFI IANk TRAVEL IANF PARKING,I.ANL Ull SINK' SOFWALK / 53'R.O.W. / k F('TION B2 29 21 Traffic Impacts 2045 Build Traffic Volumes Any of the rezoning options,Concepts 1-3,will have impacts --. _ . _ Traffic volumes were developed for four land use scenarios. on the transportation network that require improvements. "M - Concepts 1-3 are shown in Figures 4-6, respectively. The impact of Concept 3 is significantly less compared to ' i ; >.. All three concepts include completion of the Valley View Concepts 1 and 2 on 19th Street, by more than 50%less or ,�M`""' f :, _ . ;C interchange with I-581, 4,200 vpd, Major reconstruction of the intersection of Cove �\N. k- I Road and 19th Street NW is anticipated with either Concept -- `' P P _�` �: i Concepts 1 and 2 assume access to the site via the new 1 or 2. The by right scenario still has traffic impacts area • -I•- ' M/ interchange and full connection to the neighborhoods to streets that are similar to concept 3, however impacts are Concepts 182:Rezoned Interchange Connected Concepts 3 Rezoned,Interchange not connected. the south.The projected site trip volumes are added to the less on Cove/Andrews Road and 19th Street. Generally, 2045 No 2045 45245 2045 no build with interchange. these streets can take more traffic impact due to their widths Roadway Location 201 20Bo ldo Bold with Concept I C ncepConceptpt 3 Ccept 4 g P Inte ch., a or and right of way. The local street network would have less 1-581 West of Valley 61,000 70,500 71,900 77.000 75,900 70,500 View Blvd Concept 3 includes a connection between the Evans Spring trips with concept 4. East of Valley,5R1 77,000 87,000 88,000 93,100 92,400 87,000 area and the interchange, but the interchange does not View Blvd 9 9 Valley View North of 1-581 23,000 26,000 36.800 38,500 27,200 26,000 connect to the neighborhoods to the south. The projected The current roadway infrastructure can accommodate the Blvd Hershberger South oft-581 25,000 28.300 26,000 27,100 29,400 28,500 site trip volumes for Concept 3 are added to the 2045 no increase in traffic volumes with the additional traffic generated Rd Hershberger North of 1-581 32.000 41,400 35,900 36,700 42,200 41,600 build without the interchange conditions, by Concepts 1 and 2 in many cases, however, the volumes Rd are expected to increase to a level that will "feel" different Cove Rd Hershberger Rd 12,000 13,600 8.300 11900 17,800 14,800 to Lafayette Blvd Concept 4 assumes that the Evans Spring property is not to residents and users.Additional multimodal improvements Cove Rd/ Lafayette Blvd to 3,700 4.100 7,800 10,700 8,500 5,300 Andrews Rd 19.St rezoned and is developed by-right.There is no interchange will be necessary to separate pedestrians and bicyclists Cove Rd to Lafayette Bled ,,,00 8,000 8.100 9,400 9400 8,400 in this concept and internal streets are connected to from the increased vehicular traffic and improvements will Melrose Ave P P 191'St NW Andrews Rd[0 1,500 1,700 7,200 10,900 5,700 2.800 surrounding streets, be needed at some study intersections. Orange Ave Melrose Ave Eaf479"eake BlvdNW to 12.000 13,600 14,400 15,400 14.500 13,900 Tables 5 and 6 illustrate the traffic projections for the The Andrews and 19th corridors are designed to handle Orange Ave 19'^SSNWto 15,000 17,000 16,000 18,400 19,600 17,700 P 1 9 to St NW various scenarios.All the scenarios have some impact on a large amount of traffic (10,000+ trips). The issue will be iv St NW Orong58Ave to l- 9,700 10,200 9,200 10.500 11,500 10,600 the local street network to various degrees. Depending perception and in particular concerns regarding safety at Springhill Dr East of Cove Rd 360 360 360 860 690 420 on the proposed interchange connection configuration, the Andrews and 19th intersection. Various traffic calming North F off Cove airland Rd R 930 930 930 1,810 1,640 1,080 street connections, and land use types and locations and intersection improvement efforts can be integrated North°tCove impacts between scenarios are more or less on specific that mitigate these concerns while also providing real Aspen S[ Rd 840 840 840 1,410 1,410 1,020 East of local street networks.Concept 3 has the least traffic impact improvements to pedestrian safety, flow and traffic calming Ordway Dr 2,400 2,400 2,400 4,120 4,120 2,950 Hershbhberger Rd of the 3 development scenarios with an interchange due along the corridors. This could include a roundabout which Tables Daily Traffic Volume Comparison to the proposed connection only serving the proposed serves as a gateway to the area,while accommodating traffic Sh.„"o, E.ttefF.R/.ndRd Sad Aga 250 60 commercial development and not providing access through flow through the intersection Sprhomo. East of 8airbnd Rd 500 890 250 60 PWWd Rd North of Cove Rd 880 880 610 150 the neighborhood. Aspen St North ofCove Rd 570 400 180 Ordway Or East offtorshbovger Rd 1.720 1,210 550 Table 6:Daily Site Traffic Volume.on Local Streets 30 22 . 1 Economic Impacts The economic impact analysis describes the employment, OWNERSHIP RESIDENTIAL Construction-related economic impacts are driven by projected annual No.Units Lotze Avg.SF S per SF S per Unit Did%Units wages, value-added and gross regional economic output Li 2,90Si4 smProdalluct To.,nbTypeaa.e. 1,350 $ 14000 $ 169,000 28% construction spending (both hard & soft costs) on a variety of different associated with the Recommended Development Plan. The 120 2,904 Med-Size Townhouses 1,650 $ 169.00 3 278,850 38% buildings. Typically, once construction is completed much of the economic fiscal impact analysis relates to the municipal revenue and 75 s,000 MedSzeSIOFOngle telly 2.250 $ 17Qoo S 34g000 24% impact will end.As such,employment,wa es, and output will ebb and flow P Y P 32 8,500 Larger Single Forney Z250 s 176.00 S 396,000 10% P9 P expenditure demands associated with the land development 317 3,971 100% depending on the amount spent in any given year. For the Evans Spring LTAMISY plan as the project reaches buildout. The analysis covers Mu No UI-Pnit, An'140USNa d901/SF Product Type Avg.SF SperMo S per Unit Die%Units development, construction costs are estimated at roughly$233.9 million in a 20-year projection period starting in 2023 and ending in too S91.7213IedroomUnits 810 51,441`S 74,293.20 28.5% 2023 dollars. 2043. This was necessaryto model both the construction 203 $91.7222edroamUnits 1,003 31,699 S 91,995.16 57.8% 48 S91.72 34edroo.n Units 1,319 51,807 S 120,978.68 13.7% and operational phases of the project. 351 loo-o% Operational Impacts COMMERCIAL USES Dist%SF The recommended development program consists of 317 _ RURdngSFCo.neradUse S per SF Laud SF LmdS/SF BuIR/Tr. The following factors were evaluated: housingunits of various styles and sizes,includingdetached so- Nines Clan Hotel S 137.00 156,250' s 13.50 9.3% Y Office s 225.00 - s3.so 0.0% units, townhomes and cottage homes ranging in size from 435,000 Retail S 100.00 1,359,375 S10.00 80.6% Employment - IMPLAN estimates that 1,359 direct new FTE (full-time 1,350 SF to 2,250 SF.Multi-familyunits include units ranging 20000 Services $183.00 62,500 59.59 3.7% equivalent) jobs will be created in various commercial establishments 9 g 35,003 Restaurants S 209.00 109,375 $10.14 6.5% q ) in size from 810 SF for 1-bedroom to 1,319 SF for 3-bedroom 30,000 Aweed u.ingFodwy S 149.00 75,000' 52.70 - such as retail, restaurants, hospitality, business/personal services and units. In total,the recommendedplanprovides 668 housing5da000 '''62500 10009i in the assisted livingfacility. Another 296 indirect jobs will be created in Source:RKG dabs,Inc.,2023 y l units. other industries because of this spending and 101 jobs will be induced by increased household spending.In total,1,757 new jobs will be created at full The commercial building program in the Recommended One of the biggest assumptions in this analysis is the future construction buildout and full occupancy starting in 2032. Development Plan consists of 570,000 square feet,including of the 1-581 interchange, which is essential to unlock the site's retail stores, personal and business service establishments, development potential. While there is currently no plan to finance this Labor Income - The direct labor income resulting from the permanent restaurants/bars, and a business class hotel. The retail infrastructure investment, and thus no timeline for its completion, RKG business operations is projected at $680.2 million (in 2023 dollars) at the space is located in two locations in Area 1 and may consist has assumed that the estimated $60 million project will commence in end of Year 20.For all jobs created from these activities(direct,indirect,and of a big box home center, general merchandise stores, a 2027 and construction will be completed by 2030. Until the interchange induced),total labor income is projected at$994.2 million by Year 20. neighborhood grocery store, small locally owned shops and is completed, much of the non-residential development proposed cannot perhaps family entertainment uses.The building program also be fully occupied. Value Added-Value added consists of compensation of employees, taxes shows a 30,000 square foot assisted living facility to provide CONSTRUCTION PHASE IMPACTS on production and imports less subsidies. The value added for operating healthcare support for seniors. The entire development .. activities is projected at roughly$1.2 billion in direct impacts and at total of program is projected to occupy roughly 75 of the 142 acres. vA��.I �E9 i iz " $1.7 billion in direct,indirect,and induced impacts to all other industries. 141416 labor Income Economic Output Direct 1,576 $103.1 mil $130.9 mil $223.8 mil Indirect 275 $18.1 mil $33 mil $58 mil Induced 226 $11.8 mil $22.8 mil $37.9 mll Total 2,077 $133.1 mil $186.8 mil $319.7 mil 'Total of all jobs over 12.year construction period 31 22 .2 Economic Impacts Output-Output represents the value of industry production. The total economic output associated with the operating phase Protected Municipal T. Revenues Based on RKG's net fiscal impact projections for the Recommended for the first 20 years is estimated at$2 billion in direct economic Evans spring Development-Concept 3.1 Development Plan, positive annual tax revenues in excess of (2023.4043) output and nearly$3 billion when indirect and induced impacts $791,000 would not be achievable until 2028. However, once the are added. By comparison, the City of Roanoke had a total Total: 877 million(in 2023 dollars) project is substantially built out and occupied, tax revenues, net of economic output of$14.2 billion in 2021.At buildout,the Evans ~�'4.940'� eR'"'h expenses, are projected to range from $3.7 million to $4.1 million St,222,627,1% •Loco Op.m SonsSpring development will generate$212.3 million in additional annually starting in 2030(Table 5). 81,1114,23e.8% . •C Cant acnon Soles economic output,which would add 2%to the total. Curve Rev/Psis Cure Rev/Pap • . . R by Typo 12 023-2 03 31 (2023-20431 %of Taal - 83,711,818,8% •Bs.__ Real Estate To s•s 11,683,556 S 35,431,807 46.0% Local Oplbn Sales Taxes(1%) 5,481,000 8 19,183,500 24.9% OPERATIONAL PHASE IMPACTS 8M 6 ,871,1% .Pn,a a bwFaanm, Construction Ma.rieh Local Sales and U.loxes 11%) 436,373 8 466,071 0.6% Loco)Mall Taxes 1,060,290 S 3,711,015 4.8% a V«saaai Pioneers Tronsi•a O«vponcr Taxes 326,240 $ 3,588,640 4.7% c ,�, .,_<_� easiness Professional Ocospalianal License Tax(SPOL) 1,36],844 S 4,1e4,23e 5.4% I� 8l\ Ln -.. Building Permit Fan/bupeeian Costs 1,149,836 $ 1,222,627 1.6% Personal Prop My Taxes2,566,827 $ 9,274,950 12.0% le6or incem• tceeemlc Oulpul Total•Annual Ten R S 24,069,968 $ 77,042 846 100.0% Direct 1,359 $680.2 mit $1.2 bll $2.0 bll Indirect 296 $240.2 mlt $370.3 ml) $715.8 mil Net Fiscal Impacts-Evans Spring Development(Concept 3) Exponditur.s by Type Genral Go..rreaem 8 85,057 317,096 1.7% Induced 101 $73.8 mil $142.7 ml) $236.8 mil Judicial Administration 8 (31,923) (119,011) -0-6% Public Safety $ 707,956 2,639,284 13.9% Total •1,757 ••$994.2 mil ••$1.7 bit $2.9 bll Given the large presence of employment generating uses at Evans Education $ 3,232,244 12,052,174 63.6% Spring, the net fiscal impact should be a positive$18.9 million by Year H..5 Wohs $ 421,024 1 899,57 4.7% •Totals at total bulld•out "Cumulative totals over 20 years 11.aRha wetfa.. i 24t,2e4 899,517 4.7% 10 and positive $58.1 million by Year 20. This is partly due to the fact Poh;R«r•aiona Cueaearai s 260,718 971,967 5.1% Cwr.nrrur D•.elopm $ 167,445 624,242 3.3% Total Municipal Revenue Projections(2023-2043) that many of the commercial uses will be delayed until 2030 when the T.tel-Annual 4..e.Jit..• %s S 5,063,1106 S 18,954,1159 100.0 Net Final hoped(GeefSugl.$) $ 18.966.162 S 58,087,987 highway interchange is expected to be completed. So.... RKG Associate,,Inc,2023 Other secondary revenue sources from the Evans Spring development come from Transient Occupancy Taxes, Implication of Analysis Business Professional Occupational License Tax(BPOL),and Building Permit Fees and Inspection expenses imposed by the The$58.1 million in net positive tax revenue could accrue to the City's City. Collectively, those remaining revenue sources account general fund over the first 20 years of the project and could be used for roughly $9 million or 11.7% of total revenues during the to fund public infrastructure improvements to unlock the economic projection period(Figure 3).In total,$77 million in tax revenues development potential of the Evans Spring site. and fees are projected over the 20-year period ending in 2043. 32 23 Plan Benefits & Impacts The planning study considered several benefits and impacts •OPPORTUNITY loINT EATE LOCAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP E°FNES00.-CITY-MT) •NO USESners related to the site environment and neighborhood. These INTERC""BNh m`m`:`ho°M: NGn. included both areas of concerns for neighbors, as well ^�A" .RT E STEPS ^R ERSHIPS"` asprivate landowners, developers, and Cityleadership. innPEEMENrnnoN _, P WITH PARTNERS Benefit/impact categories included, fil • Access/Transportation • Economics/Entrepreneurship • Environment FEASIBLE • Housing '•AOfOOATEIN..STBOCIOBE PLAN •STOBMWATEB BEST PAMEES per Pete • Open Space and parks ..ISLI.GN.°E °nine"::°panel fG E°w°�""`"° RESPONSIVE The goal of the planning and design process was to make • PROTECTED Ilse FLOOD will"°""`"`°` each category a net benefit rather than something that was NON �° MTE` PLAN •w �-E��`-�°�- , • CHANGE ACCESS En,ne WITHOUT •TN[Mtlln,Nx•Irm°raes,B°°dinE,•aess CONNECTION En NNn,Be,e,bulNn,IwurN,entl,nM< impacted adversely or that created adverse impacts which •Er Ow PB°E»fCEI.SSTB„ET,EHNn In I •Proposed°gbn,AI,roNO m ANTIGATES could not be mitigated. Understanding that development LOVING,..tN,mG Mp•n•EMMfwWA br M1wre•evEn °T °` PEONES S,M, DEVELOPMENT HB° and infrastructure creates impacts by nature, the approach :sN„•.''Ne:o;I;NNr,B-,OBe",a GGB.M-°BwATE •S IN°•N,uNU,N.GNNG I°IWO ' nrmrce•M MABE[i,°wnun, involved leveraging each of these factors to create benefits / which helped to balance the potential negative impacts. The proposed plan mitigates impacts including but not limited Including the completion of the valley view interchange. A Responsive Plan to,the design of a disconnected or limited access interchange, creation of vegetative buffers,integration of on site stormwater Partnerships Required The Recommended Development Plan incorporates and quality and quantity measures, integration of local business addresses public demands and concerns. The plan sets entrepreneurship programs. The proposed plan will require partnerships involving the a framework for use areas, amenity, and connectivity, and City, private development interests, public agencies and general form.Within that framework it provides flexibility for A Feasible Plan the community. product type,design and densities. The proposed plan incorporates stormwater best practices The proposed plan creates benefits for the community, required by local and state code and provides for additional including but not limited to restricting highway traffic buffering and protections. access, protection and buffering of Evans Spring and Lick Run, preservation of open space buffers, creation The proposed transportation network and interchange access of public parks and open space, access to the Lick Run distributes traffic, restricts access and reduces impacts. Greenway, development of space for entrepreneurship programs, neighborhood access to services and amenity, The proposed plan generates considerable positive fiscal and neighborhood vegetative buffers. impacts that can be used to finance several environmental and infrastructure improvements in the area long term. 33 24 Project Construction Costs An opinion of probable cost was developed for the The completion of the interchange and bridge proposed development.The cost analysis utilized general crossing was estimated at approximately$55,000,000. unit costs associated with various types of development Environmental infrastructure was estimated for stream including costs for building construction, general site restoration, city stormwater pond rehabilitation, Evans development, roads, and key infrastructure. Unit costs Spring Pond restoration, and the Lick Run Greenway used are gross estimates based on industry averages and extension. Total costs for these improvements may do not represent an accurate cost estimate but however exceed$10,000,000. indicate an order of magnitude of values.These general costs were developed for the aspects of the project Other road infrastructure(road,intersection,and bridge) which would be performed by private developers. Their required to access land bays A and B are estimated at engineers would need to develop detailed estimates approximately $9,000,000. A roundabout at the 19th based on more detailed design and engineering. Street Intersection was estimated to cost$1,500,000. The cost of completing the interchange and its connection to the site was developed using VDOT's PCES cost estimation tool and unit cost data. This is to be considered an order of magnitude estimate for planning purposes. More accurate estimates will require detailed investigations, design, and engineering. This $ estimate was created because an estimate specific to the ENVIRONMENTAL interchange was needed to inform the implications of the INFRASTRUCTURE economic impact analysis as it relates to infrastructure funding which may involve a public/private partnership. (private/public) Costs were developed for the following categories. / • Interchange completion • Access infrastructure • Environmental infrastructure $$$ • Land bay A—F development costs. SITE DEVELOPMENT COSTS Private development costs of the land bays vary based (Private Equity) on the type of development and site suitability,generally $400,000 to$500,000 per acre can be expected. 34 25 Funding and Partnerships Due to the nature of various property improvements needed,including private/public infrastructure, public open space and environmental �l j protection, and land development for private businesses and „{ �% atiiiiiii, lf '�homes, it is logical that multiple funding sources and efforts will be ,�/ �3 � p , ��t 11:1//:''' ¢ I AV required. This will involve multiple interests including various City / /i /,a 6 ,tt di / �r" W� i%1 departments, and programs, VDOT, state and federal programs, ,,,, o E 1 88 z ,p , exx � �g e* g<yFE,�' x. ,,?' - a� community and environmental organizations, landowners, and 1 Project Type private development interests. Partnerships will be required to y°ta.eg xo.Ge•e Reuse x accomplish any positive outcomes on this site. we"'" "Cef°`""�' • x x x x x x x x x Sirceta<.pe A x x x x x % X x x "o.o..y Impaoremenm x x x x x A x x x Funding of the site development and environmental programs will xem..„.<..q„m �, 111e x x - - x - x x come from multiple sources.These include but are not limited to, Inds Conme<bm x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x swma.net LID....um x x A A x x x x • Private equityw x x" _ x x x x • Local capital improvement budgets """°"°'°" . - . - - n x x - Ne **Signsx x x • State agency program funding (VDOT, DCR, DEQ, DHR, ,,,,,ro A x x - x x x x x x x DHCD) PI.. en x x x _ x -x x x X x x — • Federal program funding(NPS, FHWA, HUD) W.fanD>llxIMbale _ X x x -- x x x x x x • Local and regional organizations (MPO, PDC, Housing ' "'"'""`"""-• A A A AA A A x x x x x x x x alliances) There are many funding programs which could be integrated into a phased matrix of public/private partnerships to improve community infrastructure, provide housing opportunity, protect environmental systems,and enhance community economics. The table below includes some of those funding sources and their purpose. 26 Next Steps The context of this study considers the following facts and Rezoning Option Other Options assumptions which indicate various paths forward. Given the circumstances of the property, the facts regarding Other options may be viable if they satisfy landowner concerns of value,and 1. All property is owned by private interests and the land or ownership,the potential holistic benefits of a responsive development risk related to regulatory process.These options may include a variety of uses its development rights,cannot be taken away from them. plan,and the flexibility to meet multiple objectives through a rezoning that address the City's and community's needs with out creating burdens,and It is assumed that if the property owners wish to sell their process, it seems apparent that a rezoning process is prudent.This also reducing,eliminating or offsetting public investment costs. property they will seek to find the highest value for it. will produce the best mix of outcomes for all involved. 2. The monetary value of the property is generally determined This Master Plan Process: IMP by its use and the demand for that use and the amount a Key tenets of the rezoning application should include, 2nd party is willing to pay for ownership of the property to At -- realize that use. • A limited access interchange 3. The property is zoned RA and R7 which limits its current • Protection of Evans Springs, and some level of dedicated 1 r� 2 3 use to approximately 360 lower density single family buffer around it. ' residential units,but allows other uses"by right"including • Lick Run flood plain corridor buffer dedication ANALYSIS INPUT OPTIONS but not limited various storage, energy, mobile homes, Open space integration Future Rezoning or By-Right Site Plan Submittal Process: day care,group homes. City Stormwater Pond Integration M m"�°^ Wr Health 4. The property would need to be"rezoned" to allow some ' On site integrated stormwater management * ,� of the uses shown in the recommended plan. • Dense urban form commercial development Welfare FM A mix of housingproduct densit SUBMITTAL REVIEW BY CITY DEPTS PUBLIC HEARINGS APPROVAL/DENIAL 5. The comprehensive plan, future land use plan, and y adopted Evans Spring Area Plan support the uses shown • A mix of housing product price points BY CITY COUNCIL in the recommended plan,if planned considering various • Neighborhood buffers City standards,guidelines,and regulatory requirements, • Relegation of parking,on street parking,and shared parking in including the adopted Evans Springs Master Plan. commercial areas. 6. A rezoning process would allow for further dialogue and negotiation of development plan features which address The exact configuration and metrics of these items will be determined neighborhood and City needs and concerns.This process and negotiated during the rezoning process. Plans should be in should result in realizing several benefits to the City and general conformance with this plan as adopted by City Council. neighborhood. 7. Any by right or rezoned development plan will have to By-Right Option go through a local site plan review process.All aspects of the plan affecting public health, safety, and welfare If a rezoning process is not desired,current landowners may submit will be governed by a regulatory review and approval site plans, and or special use permit applications for a variety of process.This includes but is not limited to traffic impacts, "by-right" and permitted uses. Landowners may also exercise their road design, utility infrastructure, erosion and sediment ownership protections by restricting access to any of the property control,stormwater management,floodplain and floodway including Evans Spring and Lick Run.In this option there would be no impacts,and open space requirements. proffers or conditions of approval that would include benefits to the community other that those required by the zoning code. 3i3 • .:: 4 ?; .. M ,�y V � ',..704411: : ' r r. { Fay{ 3 ��^. s± ` P R"+yIW+ 1: M ' ' * .....,., ;4•t . .--- '4, . , I 41, 001:1;.,,, yt a + �' ;fix ` } : $ t * yF v . i F i • lyeAP 4� Ik ' .•.`tYhr?1• ".x et, 44 yw �A : 4144 Y`I ` -., rr r, is ,I .r' �,r 144, t". ' --, ,,,t' 4_, I, . ,...;,4. If L-, �r y v ' 4 - �{ 1-4 F r'a ;jl +, / G i{ 'x'{ i f Vy v f�,:P di" y"' r `,,,,�rV 9 ) w+ Prepared for the City of ,, ` n,-uL ; 0 .4 4Y k . . {, . - to ', '.. Roanoke by: 4. ;+ = + { r x �`oat Group of the Sierra Club Y' Attachment B: 2024 Staff Report from February 20, 2024 City Council Agenda Qte, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Meeting: February 20, 2024 Subject: Adoption of the Evans Spring Master Plan as a component of the comprehensive plan Summary: By a vote of 5-2, the Commission recommends adoption of the Evans Spring Master Plan as a component of the City's comprehensive plan, finding that the plan is consistent with City Plan 2040 and the Evans Spring Area Plan adopted by City Council. When or if the properties are developed, the plan provides a guide for development that balances interests of environmental conservation, recreational access, economic development, residential development, and transportation access. The Evans Spring Master Plan is an incremental step in the careful and responsible consideration of development of this important assembly of land. Should a developer seek rezoning, this plan should guide and inform a specific, dimensioned plan by a developer that substantially conforms to the land uses, building scales, street patterns, and preserved areas shown in the master plan. Such a plan should be incorporated as a planned unit development plan and become a binding condition on the development of the land. Background: The Evans Spring Planning Area is approximately 1 50 acres of land along the southern side of Interstate 581 . The Melrose-Rugby and Fairland neighborhoods border the property to the south and west. With the exception of right-of-way and a utility lot containing a stormwater detention basin, the properties are privately owned. In 201 1 , as planning work began to complete the Valley View interchange, there was no definitive land use plan in place for the Evans Spring properties. City planners began an extensive neighborhood engagement and planning process that resulted in the Evans Spring Area Plan. The plan, adopted by City Council in 201 3, provides a framework for expectations for how development should occur. It recommended development of a mixed-use neighborhood within the context of its adjoining neighborhoods, a regional shopping center, and an interstate highway frontage. The plan did not contemplate any scenario for permanent open space conservation or establishment of new parkland, nor have any Parks and Recreation Master Plans made such recommendations. The 2013 plan acknowledged that a more detailed master plan would be required before rezoning the land. In June of 2022, the City of Roanoke initiated another planning process with the goal of developing such a master plan. City Council approved a partnership agreement with the property owners and the Economic Development Authority to hire a professional consultant to look at the development potential while engaging adjacent neighborhoods and the surrounding community. The objective was to create a plan that is both economically feasible and has a positive relationship with the adjacent neighborhoods. Land Planning and Design Associates (LPDA) of Charlottesville provided a proposal with a strong community engagement program and the City awarded it the planning contract. LPDA assembled a team that included recognized experts in community engagement, land planning, stormwater management, transportation, and economic development. It is important to acknowledge the context under which the master planning process was initiated. City Council adopted the Evans Spring Area Plan as a policy document in 2013. That plan called for responsible commercial and residential development. Permanent conservation or establishment of a park has never been identified as a viable option by planning staff, City administration, or City Council. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan, also adopted (201 9) as a component of the comprehensive plan, contains no recommendation for use of the properties for a park or recreational use. Given this context of adopted planning policy, a "no development" option has never been under consideration as part of this planning process. The consulting team briefed City Council in summer 2023 on its progress. In November 2023, LPDA presented its recommendations to staff and City Council in a briefing. With submittal of a published Evans Spring Master Plan document in January 2024, the team completed its work and staff then asked the Planning Commission to initiate the public hearing and plan adoption process. Master Plan Summary Site Analysis The report indicates that about 112 acres of the site are suitable for development, with areas excluded due to floodplain, floodway, and steeper slopes. Approximately 30% of the acreage is within the floodplain. While under the current zoning and applicable development regulations, the 100-year floodplain can be developed with elevated or floodproofed buildings, the master plan proposes no buildings or parking in the 100-year floodplain. Floodplain areas are indicated as preserved or established riparian buffer areas. (Sec.4, p. 8). 2 Transportation The consulting team studied the traffic impact of a new interchange connection that would connect into the neighborhood without new development, so the baseline impact of development and the impact of the interchange could be assessed more or less separately. The "Full Interchange" projection would increase traffic counts by about 10,000 trips per day at Andrews Road and 19'h Street (p. 9) even with no development of the Evans Spring properties. This conclusion was significant because it led to the recommendation that there be no vehicular connection between the interchange and the neighborhood. Stormwater management Professional civil engineers on the planning team studied existing stormwater conditions (p. 10). The Evans Spring properties are a relatively small part of a 3,747-acre watershed. Lick Run, which is a significant feature of the site, is an unstable stream in poor condition. The study provides many recommendations for a stormwater management approach, some of which are already mandated by City code. Significantly, the plan recommends a stream restoration project coordinated as part of the development process. In addition to the consulting team's work, professional civil engineers in Roanoke's Stormwater Division assessed the impact of potential development and concluded that stormwater can be managed responsibly and effectively with minimal downstream impact. Utilities Water, sewer, and natural gas utilities extend to and within the site. If the property is developed, specific needs and corresponding expansions would be considered. (p. 11) Market demand for development RKG Associates, Inc., a professional economic planning and real estate consultant, conducted a study of the market conditions in the Roanoke region to understand the demand for new commercial and residential development, which would inform how many dwelling units and how many square feet of retail would be in demand (p. 1 2-1 3). The study concludes that the Roanoke market could support 695 new residential units and 414,157 square feet of new retail and restaurants by 2030. The office market is projected to be weak. Accordingly, no office development is proposed. Community engagement An important feature of the consulting team's proposal was the strength of its community engagement process. As clearly documented in the plan, the proposed community engagement process was well implemented (p. 14). Community Engagement and Charrette Associates, a company specializing in community engagement, provided for citizens to have access to the planning process through varied tools such as meetings, focus groups, surveys (paper and online), and door-to-door canvasing interviews. 3 The consultant reported certain themes of stakeholder concern in the surrounding community: • Natural habitat preservation related to tree canopy, ng wildlie, protecting and preserving the waterways and protecting tthe lflo dplain. • Recreation access that could include a nature center, a natural swimmin area, parks and trails connecting to the neighborhood, and providing g child, adult, and senior activities with the park system. • Housing that is ecologically friendly and affordable, with smaller footprint buildings rather than high-rise buildings. • Commercial development that would benefit the surrounding neighborhood. Generally, participants preferred small, locally owned businesses and entrepreneurship opportunities, restaurants and other similar food related businesses, a neighborhood grocery store, and a theater. • Traffic concerns related to increased traffic that could result from connection the interchange and how existing neighborhood streets might be impacted. Land use As site analysis and community engagement concluded, the consulting team developed a set of seven objectives based on that analysis. These objectives were used to inform various scenarios for development. The recommendations of the 2013 Evans Spring Area Plan were heavily weighted in development of test scenarios and options. These objectives touch on the major issues of traffic, neighborhood context, environmental protection, neighborhood access, recreation amenities, housing opportunities, and local business opportunity (p. 16) Recommended plan As options and scenarios were evaluated, a plan emerged as the best option and was presented as the Recommended Development Plan (p. 19-20). Consistent with the 2013 plan, the master plan indicates large-scale retail near 1-581 shown in land bay A. Smaller scale retail and restaurant uses are located south of Lick Run following a main street development model in Land Bay B. Land Bay C, near the Andrews Road and 19`h St. Intersection, contains apartments, small-scale retail, assisted living, and business incubator space. The southwest portion of the site in Land Bay D is oriented toward residential use, providing a variety of housing types including apartment buildings, townhouses, and detached single dwellings. Land Bay F located along the southbound entrance ramp from Hershberger Road, is oriented to a variety of housing types. 4 The ensuing pages 21 -27 detail transportation, open spaces, site grading, stormwater management, parking, and street design. An option that works around the Top Hill Drive residences is presented on pages 28 and 29, should those owners opt to not participate. The City does not and cannot use eminent domain to acquire properties for private development. Traffic impacts Based on the commercial and residential development proposed in the Recommended Development plan, the consultant projected traffic generation through various scenarios. Concepts 1 and 2 study the impact of connection between the interchange and neighborhood. Concept 3 studies no through connection and Concept 4 studies by-right development under the current zoning. Ultimately, Concept 3 is determined to be the best. The impact of the Recommended Development Plan can be assessed by comparing the "2045 No Build" column with the "2045 Concept 3" column in the table on page 30. A no vehicular connection scenario is achieved by establishing pedestrian-only street segments that prohibit through traffic in Land Bays B and C. Economic impacts Economic impacts were assessed in two phases: construction impacts, as the project is built out, and operational impacts, as ongoing economic activity that continues indefinitely. Construction would create over 2,000 jobs with labor income of $133M and value-added activity of $186.8M. Ongoing operational impacts, projected through year 20, are enormous: 1 ,757 new jobs, $994.2M labor income, and $1 .7 billion in value-added activity. The study projects that new revenues to fund schools, public safety, and other public services are projected at $3.7M or more per year. Considerations The recommended plan balances a number of competing interests of various stakeholders. The plan is consistent with the Evans Spring Area Plan in its arrangement of land uses and successfully resolves issues of neighborhood and interchange access. The plan turns a development challenge into an asset by preserving the Lick Run and Evans Spring tributary and considering stream restoration and development of public greenway access. Currently, there is no public access to the pond or Lick Run. The plan recommends a residential development component that could support over 600 dwellings that could help to meet region's acute need for new housing. The form of most housing is smaller scale townhouses and small apartment buildings. No rent levels or costs for housing are indicated by the plan. 5 The commercial development south of Lick Run is scaled and oriented to serve the needs of multiple surrounding neighborhoods. Buildings and streets are arranged in a main street model. Truncating through access from the interchange to the neighborhood, while it would reduce neighborhood access, is a significant traffic management strategy. Though traffic would certainly increase on the neighborhood side, the projections indicate manageable volumes with the existing street system more- or-less in its current configuration. When a specific development plan for rezoning is considered, a traffic impact analysis should indicate off-site street improvements that are warranted. At a minimum the intersection of Andrews Road and 1 9th Street would need to be redesigned with safety improvements. Segments of Andrews and 19th Street should be retrofitted from high-speed suburban style roads to more appropriately sized streets that are pedestrian friendly lined with street trees. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan: The draft Evans Spring Master Plan is aligned with the policies established in City Plan 2040. The six guiding themes of City Plan 2040 are Interwoven Equity, Healthy Community, Harmony with Nature, Livable Built Environment, Responsible Regionalism, and Resilient Economy. Interwoven Equity An initial goal of the Evans Spring Master Plan process was to engage the community proactively in shaping future development proposals. There will be continuous pressure to develop these properties because the inventory of vacant land is so limited. City Plan 2040 acknowledges the history of inequality in northwest Roanoke through both implicit and proxy racist policies, redlining, and the targeted implementation of urban renewal policies. As a result, City Plan 2040 through its focus on Interwoven Equity recognizes the need to build trust within the community. To this end, a sincere effort was made to hire a consultant team that had special expertise in community engagement and to support an effort that took note of the community's concerns for the future of the properties. The result was a transparent process that details the predominant themes of the public input and includes specific safeguards in the plan to achieve some of the community's goals while mitigating the impact of potential future development. If approved, the Evans Spring Master Plan will provide city staff, Planning Commission, and City Council with a framework to guide any future rezoning and development proposals. Healthy Community The Evans Spring Master Plan promotes safety by recommending a transportation plan that eliminates a through connection from the interstate to the neighborhood, yet still provides access to some commercial elements and 6 provides bicycle and pedestrian access throughout the potential development. The neighborhood expressed concern that the through connection from the interstate to the neighborhood would create traffic problems, and the consultant's traffic study showed their concerns to be warranted, as it would require significant roadway improvements to make the increased traffic level feel comfortable if the development was built with a through connection. The proposed street sections within the recommended plan are designed to be multimodal and meet the City's Street Design Guidelines. The plan recommends significant wooded riparian buffers, stream restoration and greenway access for recreational access. Harmony with Nature Water Resource Management is a priority within the Harmony with Nature section of the comprehensive plan. The recommended development plan in the Evans Spring Master Plan will meet the Virginia Runoff Reduction Method (VRRM) and aim to minimize the impervious area and provide stormwater measures that will disconnect the impervious area. In addition, the proposed system will be designed to mitigate increase in runoff leaving the property due to the increased roof/ impervious areas. The project will include a number of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to manage stormwater generated from the development such as permeable pavement, detention areas, forebays, rain gardens, infiltration strips, bioretention swales, and level spreaders. This is in line with policy within City Plan 2040 to improve onsite management of stormwater quality and quantity in all development projects. City Plan 2040 also seeks to provide safe, accessible open space, greenspace, greenways, blueways, and parks for all residents. The Evans Spring Master Plan calls for the preservation of Evans Spring, protection of the floodplain, restoration of the stream and riparian area, establishment of buffers around the waterways, and enhancement of the surrounding habitat, while providing recreational amenities to include public open space and connections to the greenway. Currently, these properties are privately owned, but the preferred development scenario selected by the consultant team would provide for a substantial amount of acreage to be preserved as open space open to the public with a network of trails connecting to the greenway. Livable Built Environment The Evans Spring Master Plan is consistent with and implements multiple policies of the Livable Built Environment theme. The plan promotes context sensitive design with main street commercial forms and mixing of various housing types. It protects the stream and tributary by avoiding development in the floodplain and establishing a riparian buffer. The residential element brings a range of housing options to the existing neighborhood that is mostly detached single dwellings with few other options. The master plan recommends 7 assisted living housing that would enable elderly residents to transition to other living arrangements and stay in their neighborhood. The plan further recommends a connected system of well-designed tree-lined streets that accommodate mobility for pedestrians and cyclists comfortably. Existing bus routes (1 1 &1 2) currently access the site. Responsible Regionalism City Plan 2040 describes a need for locally-focused plans to work to prevent sprawl. The Evans Spring Master Plan has a regional anti-sprawl consideration. The plan implements adopted Sierra Club Urban Infill Policy, which advocates guiding new development into infill sites like the Evans Spring area. Staff has encouraged local environmental advocates to review the Evans Spring Master Plan in the context of the Smart Growth and Urban Infill Policy (2021) adopted and published by the Sierra Club. ' If the Evans Spring site is not developed, it does not mean that development will not occur. It will likely occur somewhere else in the region on a greenfield site, in a way that does not consider environmental preservation in its development plan, and in a location which has no prospect for transit access. Likewise, the City has often been supportive or an active partner in redevelopment projects throughout the City including in downtown, along the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area, and now within Riverdale, the former Viscose Plant. These redevelopment projects work in tandem with urban infill projects to help the City grow without creating sprawl. Resilient Economy For years, concerns in the surrounding neighborhoods have focused on restoring access to basic goods and services like groceries that residents once had access to in the neighborhood. Indeed, many of Roanoke's enduring and resilient neighborhoods have commercial development within and adjacent to the neighborhood, providing easy access. One of the intentions of the development framework is to provide access to goods and services without having to drive miles to other parts of the City. Furthermore, both the 201 3 plan and master plan carefully consider the relationship of proposed development to the existing neighborhood. A key priority in City Plan 2040 was to develop local businesses and entrepreneurs. The Technical Memo on Local Entrepreneurship outlines an entrepreneurship development program could be created to serve residents in neighborhoods that would be most affected by development at Evans Spring. The program could include small-scale incubator, retail incubator, and/or a community kitchen. The plan directly calls for the creation of opportunities for local entrepreneurship and lists business incubator as one of the recommended uses in both Land Bay B and Land Bay C. www.sierraclub.org/smart-growth-urban-infill 8 Public Comment At the March 9 community meeting, there was significant opposition to any development and advocacy for acquisition by the city for a park. Opposition to development has been expressed throughout the process. The consulting team and staff were not optimistic that any level of engagement would generate unanimous community support for development. The purpose of the engagement was not to determine support or opposition, nor to attempt to generate support, but rather to understand concerns and make responsive modifications to the development plan. In other words, if the property is developed, then how can development be shaped to respond to community concerns. Staff noted concerns throughout the process and summarizes them in the points below: • Additional time required to thoroughly review the plan • Lack of an environmental study • City Council hearing on an irregular meeting date • Additional time needed for the Friends of Evans Springs to present to City Council • Potential for bad weather in February • Clarification needed regarding potential discrepancies in the plan • Removal of tree canopy • Additional residential units and commercial businesses • Lack of a nature preserve • Poor planning practices based on a rational planning model • Wildlife habit destruction • Increased stormwater run-off • Lack of partnership between the City and community • Lack of buffer around Evans Spring • Lack of an ecologically-sensitive recreation area near Evans Spring • Allowing additional commercial construction when existing commercial spaces at neighboring shopping centers are vacant, • Visual intrusion of the bridge, • Increase in noise • Lack of requiring public acquisition of undevelopable land • Lack of a historic survey • Community desire for a nature preserve over all other forms of development • Lack of trust based on past urban renewal projects. • Destruction of a rare Appalachian upland wetland habitat. • Impact on the Lick Run Greenway. • Using the 201 3 Evans Spring Area Plan as a starting point for how to develop the property. • Not considering eminent domain as a means to create a nature preserve • Correlation between increased violence and reduced tree canopy. 9 • The plan addresses neighborhood input by no-link from 1-581 to the neighborhood and creating strategies to mitigate gentrification. Suggested changes regarding clarity and discrepancies within the plan have been incorporated and helped to create the current version of the draft document. Online and paper petitions previously gathered for and against the proposed change were also submitted. The majority of the petition signers were opposed to the plan. Planning Commission: Public comments concerned the desire for a nature preserve at Evans Spring, adoption of the master plan raising the price of the land, trees on this property needed to protect the northwest portion of the City from the rising heat index, lack of a trauma-informed analysis, desire to preserve this historic property, property noted for preservation in the Virginia Wildlife Action Plan, abundance of vacant commercial property in close proximity to this property, economic analysis based on department store not reflective of current economic trends, proposal disproportionally affecting minority communities, lack of consideration of climate risk, destruction of wildlife habitat, need for flooding analysis, current reducing tax basis in our City, desire to include place-based learning at Evans Spring, and need for more park space in the northwest quadrant of the City. Conclusions and Recommendations: The Planning Commission appreciates the citizen participation in this process and thinks that this master plan adds an additional layer of protection to any future development of this land, addressing the community's concerns of equity, health community, and harmony with nature in not displacing property owners, requiring preservation of a large portion of the property, allowing public access to an outdoor amenity, providing future opportunity for the community with a mix of housing and commercial development in a walkable community. The Planning Commission supports the process used to develop the master plan as providing opportunity to be engaged. The team documented how it responded to identified community concerns about the prospect of development. The consulting team, made up of certified landscape architects, economic experts, and professional engineers, brought considerable professional competency to the process with experts in transportation, stormwater management, environmental management, market analysis, economic impact, and community engagement. 10 The Evans Spring Master Plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan, City Plan 2040, and the Evans Spring Area Plan and the Planning Commission recommends adoption as a component of the comprehensive plan. Frank Martin, Chai r City Planning Commission Distribution: Robert S. Cowell, Jr., City Manager Angela O'Brien, Assistant City Manager Chris Chittum, Executive Director of Community Development and Placemaking R. Wayne Leftwich, Jr., Planning Manager Katharine Gray, Planning Commission Agent Timothy Spencer, City Attorney Laura Carini, Senior Assistant City Attorney 11 Attachment C: Public Comment Received as of April 22, 2026 Request of the Planning Commission,City Planning Staff and City Council for Revisions to the Evans Spring Plan from the Blue Ridge Land Conservancy BACKGROUND The Blue Ridge Land Conservancy(BRLC) and our partner, The Conservation Fund(TCF), have been in contact over the past year with several of the owners of properties identified in the Evans Spring Master Plan. The discussions have focused on TCF purchasing parcels in Evans Spring for the purposes of conserving the land. Should TCF purchase one or more parcels, BRLC would then obtain grants to buy the land from TCF. Land bays A, D and E in the Evans Spring Plan are of particular interest because they contain Evans Spring itself, the pond, a tributary leading from the pond to Lick Run, and Lick Run—in other words, the most ecologically and environmentally important parcels. Why is The Conservation Fund involved? As they explain on their website, TCF "can step in to acquire at-risk land on behalf of long-term conservation partners who aren't able to move as quickly. Without our quick action,millions of acres—important spaces and cherished places— would be lost forever."In other words, if an Evans Spring landowner is ready to sell, TCF could purchase the property, and then work with BRLC on a longer time frame to transfer the properties to their final owner. TCF has been very active in the Roanoke region in recent years,helping to purchase land in the McAfee's Knob viewshed for subsequent transfer to the Appalachian Trail Conservancy in Roanoke and Botetourt Counties, and purchasing important tribal lands in Amherst County for subsequent transfer to the Monacan Indian Nation. BRLC's purpose in owning the land would be to create a privately-owned and maintained, publicly-accessible open space.No funds from the City of Roanoke are anticipated to be part of this endeavor. Similar local spaces include the Bottom Creek Gorge Preserve near Bent Mountain, owned and maintained by The Nature Conservancy. BRLC also owns similar privately-owned,publicly-accessible areas in the City of Martinsville,Henry County, Amherst County and Augusta County,with plans to obtain property in Catawba in Roanoke County in the near future. The exact nature of the amenities available to the public would be determined in cooperation with the Evans Spring community and the citizens of Roanoke, including the grassroots group Friends of Evans Spring. BRLC would also be willing to discuss with the City of Roanoke an easement or transfer of land to the City for the purposes of extending the Lick Run Greenway as identified in the 2018 Roanoke Valley Greenway Plan. BRLC would target state grant funds(in part)to purchase the Evans Springs parcels from TCF. If awarded,these grant sources require that an open-space easement be placed on the purchased properties. This easement must be held by a public body(such as the Virginia Outdoors Foundation) and would prevent commercial, industrial or residential development of the property. Virginia law states that for an open-space easement to be valid, it must comply with the locality's comprehensive plan. The City of Roanoke would be asked for a letter confirming compliance with the comprehensive plan. THE ASK: We request that the Evans Spring Plan be amended to include a statement that conservation is an acceptable alternative outcome to the recommended development plan. Such language could include reference to the Harmony with Nature theme within the Roanoke City Plan 2040.Conservation supports Priority One,Policy 4: Improve natural connections within the urban landscape. If preferred,the plan could include an optional development map with land bays A,D, and E as natural conservation area. In the event the landowners wished to proceed with a voluntary sale to TCF,these edits would lend clarity to the question of compliance with the comprehensive plan. A Land Use Proposal for the Evans Spring Area William R. Sweet, ASLA January 28, 2026 For the Friends of Evans Spring FES requests a meeting with city planning staff to identify the boundaries of the proposed nature preserve and to present Friends of Evans Spring (FES) proposal for a Community Land Trust (CLT) Defining the Boundaries of the Evan Spring Nature Preserve Boundaries are established to protect the ecosystem of the greater watershed for the spring, Trout Run Creek, Lick Run Creek and the surrounding forest and grass lands for diverse wildlife habitat. Flood mitigation work within the area will help reduce flooding of downtown while restoring a recreational fishery. These areas are in Master Plan Section A, including the identified flood plain and the city storm water retention pond. The word "Acquire" is used to identify acquiring privately owned parcels of land for the nature preserve preferably by a nonprofit such as the Blue Ridge Land Conservancy. Generally speaking the northern boundary is 1-581; the western boundary follows Fairland Road NW; the southern boundary follows the back of properties on Lakeview Drive to the property boundary of Area D where it extends along the top of a steep forested ridge behind Top Hill Dr. and an undeveloped subdivision Fields Cr. and Fields St. The eastern boundary would extend to the existing greenway and Lick Run Creek. Reference - Evans Springs Master Plan / Update - Development Plan Update 3B/3C. Page 2 of 3 The proposed Nature Preserve Area boundaries: • Area A - acquire 18.96 acres • Flood plain - acquire 32.09 acres • OS - Spring. Acquire 4.63 acres including the steep forested land extending up to the top of the rear of the lots on Lakeview Dr. • The storm water park is in city ownership 7.33 acres • The "upper portion or back" of Areas B and D are part of a steep forested area to be acquired for protecting the biologic and aquatic diversity of the ecosystem for Lick Run and Trout Run Creeks and the spring. • If developed for housing a 200 — 300 foot buffer should be placed at the top of the ridge of Areas B and D. • Area E—Acquire 7.69 acres for the greenway trailhead and an entry area to the nature preserve with parking, small picnic area with toilets, and an education center for use by schools, interpretation, and seasonal educational guided tours. The Friends of Evans Spring propose establishing a Community Land Trust (CLT) in Areas B, C, and D. (see Community Land Trust Briefing, dated December 19, 2025, Tiffany Jordan, Resident Member FES) A CLT model offers a path forward for equity that balances environmental preservation, affordable housing development, and community control. — keeping Evans Spring in the hands of those who call the neighborhood home rather than outside speculative developers. The Medium Income (AMI) for the Roanoke City Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is $40,251. The Community Land Trust would (CLT) serve those 30 to 50% AMI. The CLT will fulfill a much needed niche for affordable housing in Roanoke with minimum investment by the city. Page 3 of 3 Neighborhood input to the development plan for Evans Spring follows: • No through traffic from 1-459 through the neighborhood to Andrews Road. • No commercial development— keep commercial development in Valley View Mall and surrounding vacant buildings such as the old the Burlington Coat factory as one of many examples. • Develop homes that "look like ours." Single family homes and no apartment complexes. The concern remains higher valued homes will create gentrification for neighborhood elders. High density apartment complex will be out of character with the neighborhood destroying the fabric of the neighborhood. Urban renewal forced relocation of families and destroyed neighborhoods including family homes, schools, and churches. It destroyed a society. This pain will never dissipate. A CLT will enable a new generation of families to accumulate generational wealth, which their families lost during urban renewal. The city will receive property taxes on the homes. Studies by Virginia Tech and Carillion document a correlation between heat island effects and the general health of the youth and elderly residents of the neighborhood. Areas B, C, and D are primarily forested. The NW Neighborhood has the highest residential heat island index in Roanoke A new paradigm for Roanoke should require a residential development preserve 75-80 percent of the site tree canopy. Housing should be "planted" within the forest - not clearcutting and grading the tract flat. The size of lots vary and the setbacks vary. Page 4 of 4 The Community Land Trust includes: • Area B - 27.56 acres. This area borders the nature preserve and surrounds Top Hill Drive and an undeveloped subdivision. • Area C - 9.71 acres- This area has frontage on Andrews Road. The CLT will determine neighborhood compatible light commercial and housing options for this tract. • Area D — 23.85 acres. This area borders the nature preserve. Roanoke City provides traditional services • Water and sewer • Police protection • Fire and EMS services • Sanitation • Street maintenance • Tree planting and maintenance on city property ROWs • Issue building permits and inspection of building codes • Make adjustments to zoning code where needed — lot size, setbacks, tree retention, road standards • Be an active supporter and partner in the Community Land Trust 4/9/26,11:03 AM • Inbox-PlanningBldDev planning-Outlook • Outlook • . [EXTERNAL] Evans Spring • - 'From Tom Carr <oldcityplanner@gmail.com> Date Thu 4/9/2026 9:28 AM . To PlanningBldDev planning <planning@roanokeva.gov>; Katharine Gray <Katharine.Gray@RoanokeVa.gov>; - - Colette Baumgardner<Colette.Baumgardner@roanokeva.gov> • CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments-or:on clicking links from unknown senders. Emily, Katharine, Colette: I saw the agenda for the April 13 PC meeting and have read the staff report. With that in mind I would like to offer the following comments/recommendations for consideration by the Staff, Planning Commission and City Council. • • The report notes that: "The.2013 plan acknowledged that a more detailed master plan would be required before rezoning the land. In June of 2022, the City of Roanoke initiated another planning process with the • goal of developing such a master plan. CityCouncil approved a partnership agreement with the property owners and the Economic Development Authority to hire a professional consultant, LPDA, to look at the development potential while engaging adjacent neighborhoods and the surrounding community. The objective was to create a plan that is both economically feasible and has a positive relationship with the adjacent neighborhoods." There is much to commend in the current plan in the areas of environmental protection, greenways, open_space and the compatible proposal for Land.Bays E and F. Unfortunately,the main results of that 2022 process were a plan who's economic feasibility relied on massive investments of •"scarce local resources, and that clearly failed to create a positive relationship with-the adjacent neighborhoods. For those reasons,the city should reject options 1 and 2 of the staffs report and adopt option 3. • I recommend this option for several reasons: o I believe that there are some confusing inconsistencies in the plan that need to be remedied. For example,the chart on page 27 of the plan shoves a hotel/conference center in Land Bay C,across from RAMS. Surely this is a mistake. o Economic, community, planning and financial conditions have changed significantly in Roanoke since 2022-24. For example,the city is undertaking revitalization plans and investments in neighborhood centers very.close to Evans Spring (i.e. 11th St. NW, Melrose Plaza, etc.) The city should be absolutely sure that existing centers and investments are not undermined by new development at Evans Spring. The city should also have a plan that accommodates the impact of increased residential on RCPS. o The cost estimates from 2024 are surely out of date and cannot be trusted. The-Memorial Bridge project should be an object lesson. o The city should not be committing itself to sharing development costs at the planning stage.Any such commitments should only be part of an.economic"development agreement that guarantees the city compensatory revenunes. o I would like to see land bays C and B developed for more residential development more compatible with Melrose Rugby.The surrounding residential neighborhood is zoned,R-5 and R-7, and the recent; changes (also under reconsideration)offer greater density and residential development configurations . for much needed housing. • https://outlook.office365.com/mail/planning@roanokeva.god/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAANYQDEapmEc2byACgAC%2FEWg0A65yVRd k%2BVOONoCF... 1/2 4/9/26,11:03 AM Inbox-PlanningBldDev planning-Outlook • I also recommend that Option 3 be led by local staff, commissions, residents and property owners, with the assistance of consultants only where special expertise is needed, not led by -. consultants who have no stake in the community. Local staff are much more familiar with our neighborhoods, and knowing that the planners and neighbors will be seeing each other in church or the grocery store or at the Y will make for a more balanced outcome. Revisiting the plan for the future of these properties will not be easy, but I think it is the best way to rebuild trust and develop a way forward. Thank you for your consideration, Tom Carr 428 Kepplewood Ave SE Roanoke, VA • https://outlook.office365.com/mail/planning@roanokeva.g ov/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQ D EapmEc2byACgAC%2 FEWg0A65yVRd K%o2 BVOON oC F,.. 2/2 • 4/13/26, 12:07 PM Inbox-Emily Clark-Outlook o t Outlook FW: [EXTERNAL] Planning Commission From Cecelia Mccoy <susie.mccoy@roanokeva.gov> Date Mon 4/13/2026 12:02 PM To Emily Clark <emily.clark@roanokeva.gov> Emily, Please see below remarks from former Councilman.Bill Bestpitch for the record and for today's meeting. Thank you. Susie AcCoy City Clerk Ext. 6358 From: Bill Bestpitch<billbestpitch@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,April 13, 2026 11:13 AM To: Cecelia Mccoy<susie.mccoy@roanokeva.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Planning Commission CAUTION: This email originated from outside.your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or on clicking links from unknown senders. Susie The website shows today's meeting as Monday, the 14th, not 13th. https://onboard.roanokeva.gov/meeting/6680 I regret that I am not able to attend the meeting today. Please send them these written comments: Evans Spring Plan, Section 6 Stormwater Conditions, includes a map showing the floodway, floodplain, and river and creek corridor. The first recommendation is "Place a conservation easement over the stream corridor"; not just the floodway or the floodplain but the corridor. The Planning Commission should ask the City Council to adopt a resolution encouraging all property owners within the designated river and creek corridor to place those properties in a conservation easement. Bill Bestpitch . https://outlook.cloud.microsoft/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACgAC%2FEWg0AuG6rnMF6YEgDo6OMUxa8JwADGcWwjwAA 1/1 Colette Baumgardner From: David Perry <dperry@blueridgelandconservancy.org> Sent: Wednesday,April 15, 2026 3:46 PM • .. To: Katharine Gray; Ryan Calder;James Settle;oshoniyi@domrisk.com;jahsmah@aol.com; bjwolfe@hotmail.com; nicoledempah@gmail.com; Frank C. Martin, Ill Cc: Colette Baumgardner; Katharine Gray; Emily Clark Subject: [EXTERNAL]thanks and thoughts on April 13 Planning Commission public hearing 'Some people who received this message.don't often get email from dperry@blueridgelandconservancy.org.Learn why this is important. I CAUTION:This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or On clicking links from unknown senders. Dear City of Roanoke Planning Commission members and staff, Thank you for your consideration of the various requests you heard regarding Evans Spring at Monday's public hearing. I do want to raise one point with the group. The commission and staff seem to be operating under a false dichotomy of"leaving Evans Spring alone" vs. "developing it." No one wants to "leave Evans Spring alone," certainly not the Blue Ridge Land Conservancy.If we obtain eventual ownership of the land, it will be developed just not into a big box retail store and the other types of development that are in the Evans Spring plan. It will be developed into what the Evans Spring community wants,which we're,hearing is a park—a publicly-accessible,,privately-owned park. If the community continuesforward with this concept,we'll develop trails.We'll develop parking for cars and school buses.We'll develop interpretive signage for children and families.We'll develop a right-of- way for the City of Roanoke to extend the Lick Run Greenway.We'll develop benches,water fountains and other park amenities. We'll haul off trash, remove invasive species, obtain grants to restore the natural banks and contours of Lick Runand-a•tributary, and work with local agencies to address the homeless problem and the issue of hunting stands on the property. We'll do anything but"leave it alone."The trees,the spring,the pond and the waterways will remain, but the property will be far from"undeveloped," again, based on what we hear from the community. Frankly, it's disappointing to witness city planning staff and planning commission members not recognize-a park as development--development that would benefit the City of Roanoke and its multi-decade commitment to outdoor recreation and promoting the City's outdoor amenities. Instead,we hear misguided sentiments like, "It would be a shame for the land to just sit there." 1 Thank you again for your consideration on Monday, and the issue of amending the Evans Spring plan moves on to City Council. David C.Perry,Executive Director Blue Ridge Land Conservancy I Central Virginia Land Conservancy(Southern Virginia Land Conservancy The Lemon House 11305 Maple Ave.SW Roanoke,VA 24016 I(540)985-0000 ext.1 We protect the lands and waters you love,forever. 414 n- BLUE RIDGE CENTRAL SOUTHERN • LAND CONSERVANCY VIRGINIA VIRGINIA LAND CONSERVANCY LAND CONSERVANCY NOT LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE:Nothing herein is to be considered legal,tax or professional advice of any sort. • AFFIDAVIT REQUEST: The Roanoke City Council is pursuing three Council Member Initiatives,including review of: • The 2024 Zoning Amendments,which primarily relate to residential zoning • A new Vape and Tobacco Establishment ordinance • The Evans Spring Plan • Following this review,some of the proposed amendments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979), as amended,would reduce the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on residentially zoned property,specifically in the R-12, R-5, R-3, RM-1, and.RM-2 Residential Districts. Depending on the zoning district, the proposed amendments include, but may not be limited to: increasing the minimum lot t area required for each dwelling unit, reducing the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on a lot,and/or establishing a maximum lot area. As a result of potential reductions in allowable dwelling unit density,all property owners of residentially zoned property in City of Roanoke are receiving this letter, regardless of whether their property is affected. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) )TO-WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The affiant, Emily G. Clark,first being duly sworn,states that she is Secretary to the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to-make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that,.pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2=2204,.Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail this cAv. - v ' , 2026, notices of a public hearing to be held on this tit L , 20261 on the request - - U captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels as set out on the attached. Emily G. Cl SUBSC IBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke,Virginia,this 24 day of Ap R( t< , 2026. iti `- rk! TtTTy Cornrnissm Notary Public CARDINAL NEWS G SOUTNwEST AND SOUTHSIOE VIRGINIn See Proof on Next Page AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Cardinal News P.O. Box 4455, Roanoke,VA 24015 (540) 467-2189 State of Florida, County of Orange, ss: I, Edmar Corachia, of lawful age, being duly sworn upon oath depose and say that I am an agent of Column Software, PBC, duly appointed and authorized agent of the Publisher of Cardinal News, a publication that is a "legal newspaper" as that term is defined in 8.01-324 of the Code of Virginia, and authorized as such by Order of the Circuit Court, that the full text of the attached notice was published in said publication and also at www.publicnoticevirginia.com, which is,a searchable statewide repository of such notices, on the following dates. Publication Dates: • Mar 30, 2026 • Apr 6, 2026 Notice ID: yZUfouwvfrDiOswi4RO4 Notice Name: Public Hearing Notice Publication Fee: $235.00 Edmgr G�raohtA Agent ,OU,NIIItltlggq `\���PBY_PV��i JESSICA GORDON-THOMPSON %o 3 Notary Public-State of Florida VERIFICATION -_ N; I111I I 'a= Commission#Hx3olsss a.. %91+�`P Expires on August 17,2026 State of Florida �'��,,°,,;,,,;, County of Orange Signed or attested before me on this: 04/08/2026 Notary Public Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof. Public Hearing Notice I Page 1 of 4 Public Hearing Notice PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City Planning Commission for the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing in the City Council Chamber,Fourth Floor,Room 450,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Virginia,24011,on April 13,2026,at 1:30 pm,or as soon as the matter may be heard,to consider and to provide the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council with respect top roposed amendments to Chapter 36.2,Zoning,of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979),as amended,to consider(1)proposed zoning amendments related to the Council Member Initiatives to evaluate various aspects of the zoning code,including vape shop reg- ulations,the September 16,2024 housing ordinance,and other identified community concerns,and(2)proposed amendments to City Plan 2040,the City's Comprehensive Plan,by adopting amendments to the Evans Spring Master Plans,all as further described below. (1)The proposed Zoning Amendments to Chapter 36.2,Zoning,of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979),as amended,are intended to facilitate context sensitive housing development;to promote community health and wellness;to encourage purposeful land use to make changes to the use tables for multiple purpose,industrial,and planned unit development districts;and to make changes to clarify and correct elements of the zoning code,such amendments being for the public purposes of promoting public health,public safety,and good zoning practice.Such amendments do not involve a change in the zoning map classification of any parcels of land.The Planning Commission will consider these Zoning Amendments: 1.Section 36.2-205,Dimensional regulations,changes to lot frontage and maximum front yard requirements;addition of section de- scription for inf ill development; 2.Section 36.2-312,Dimensional regulations for residential districts,changes to the dimensional regulations for residential districts with some changes resulting in a reduction of allowable density in certain districts 3.Section 36.2-315,Use table for multiple purpose districts,changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the mul- • tiple purpose districts; 4.Section 36.2-322,Use table for industrial districts,changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the industrial districts; 5.Section 36.2-327,Use table for planned unit development districts,changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the planned unit development districts; 6.Section 36.2-403,Accessory uses and structures,addition of supplemental regulations for portable storage containers; 7.Section 36.2-405,Bed and breakfast,homestay,and short-term rental establishments,changes to standards for homestay estab- lishments; 6.Section 36.2-407.3,Data Center,addition of supplemental regulations for data centers; 9.Section 36.2-409.1,Dwellings,addition of parking and design standards for specific dwelling types; 10.Section 36.27426.1,Retail Sales of Vape and Tobacco Establishments,addition of supplemental regulations for vape and tobacco establishments; • 11.Section 36.2-429,Temporary uses,changes to zoning districts for produce stands; 12.Section 36.2-540,Zoning amendments,changes to staff roles for zoning amendment procedure; 13.Section 36.2,625,Outdoor lighting standards,changes to wording for pole-mounted lighting; 14.Section 36.2-644,Overall tree canopy requirements,changes to internal City Code references; 15.Section 36.2-646,Facade planting,changes to building conditions where facade plantings are required; 16.Appendix A.Definitions,additions,removal,and changes to definitions; 17.Appendix B,Submittal Requirements,changes to Basic Development Plan submission requirements; On February2,2026,the City Council adopted a Resolution(Resolution No.43349-020226)initiating the evaluation of various aspects of the Zoning Code,including vape shop regulations,the September 16,2024 housing ordinance,and other identified community con- cerns to provide additional opportunities for further public comment,Planning Commission review,and City Council review. The Zoning Amendments that will be considered: 1.Reduce the density of dwelling units permitted in certain residential zoning districts.More specifically,some of the proposed amend- ments to Chapter 36.2,Zoning,of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979),as amended,would reduce the maximum number of dwell- Public Hearing Notice I Page 2 of 4 ing units allowed on residentially zoned property,specifically in the R-12,R-5,R-3,RM-1,.and RM-2 Residential Districts.Geograph- • ically,these:residential districts are located throughout the City and cover the bulk of the City's land area and almost all of Roanoke's housing supply. The purposes of the.R-12,R-5,R-3,and RM-1 districts are to provide a range of housing options and to provide opportunities for • compatible home=based entrepreneurship.Dimensional and supplemental regulations implement standards that control building form building placement and other characteristics of development.These districts cover the majority of the City's land area and contain most of Roanoke's housing supply.The purpose of the RM-2 district is to provide for all housing types with an emphasis on townhouses, cottage courts,and apartment buildings.This district is generally mapped in areas near or adjacent to neighborhood and other com- mercial centers,but also may be applied to existing apartment buildings in neighborhood contexts.Depending on the zoning district, the proposed amendments include,but may not be-limited to:increasing the minimum lot area required for each dwelling unit,reducing the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on a lot,and/or establishing a maximum lot area.The following chart describes the changes in more detail: Zoning District RA R-12 R-7 R-5 R-3" I RM-1 RM-2 I RMF Minimum lot area for each 43,560. 2;500 2,000 '4:549 4 O0.0 1,500 4;000 1,000 chielling(sq ft) 4000 :2000 1.500 1:500 Minimum lot area for each 1,500 1,000 1,000 group living adult resident or room(sq ft) Comer lot maximum number of 1 3 4 4- § g No No - dwellings 4 4 fi. limit limit Interior or through lot maximum 1 1 2 3 . 4 No No number f dwellings 2. 3 3 limit limit Minimum area of a.lot 43,560 8,000 15,500 4,000 3,000 4,000 4,000 115,000 ;Maximum area of a lot 15.000. 24.000 Note:Text to be removed is in red-.r 4:4d.,,;!,gfr,end new proposed text is in red underline, Fora map of the residentially zoned property subject to the changes,please visit vnvw.roanokeyayovLcmi/map 2!Implement priorities of the City Plan 2040 related to housing,neighborhood choice,complete neighborhoods,equity,context-sensi- tive design;health,wellness,and purposeful land use; 3.Address the need for a broad range of housing types available; 4.Add use classification and supplemental regulations for vape and tobacco establishments,data centers,data processing facilities, and inpatient mental health and substance abuse clinics; 5.Limit districts where self-storage uses are permitted to allow more efficient use of the City"s limited developable'land area; 6.Clarify and correct elements of the zoning code that are confusing,hard to read,or difficult to enforce; 7.Change where certain uses are permitted,not permitted,or require a special exception in the following use,categories:Commercial; Industrial;Assembly and Entertainment;Public,Institutional,and Community Facilities;Warehousing and Distribution. (2)A request by the City'of Roanoke to consider adopting amendments to Evans Spring Master Plan adopted'as a part Of City Plan 2040;the City's comprehensive plan.Evans Spring Master Plan is designed to provide a vision that addresses neighborhood needs, • environmental conditions,market conditions,economic impacts,and infrastructure constraints. A physical copy of the proposed amendments is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk,Suite 456,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Virginia,24011.Citizens may also access the amendments,along with explana- • tory material,at httpi/roanokeva.gov/cmi.The ordinance ordaining,amending,and/or adopting the amendments described above shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council for the City of Roanoke. All persons shall be afforded ah opportunity to address the City Planning Commission at the public hearing.Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Planning Commission by mail to 215 Church Avenue SW,Room 166,Roanoke,VA 24011,or by email to planningcommisslon0roanokeva.gov Emily G.Clark,Secretary,City Planning Commission The Citybf Roanoke will make reasonable accommodations for any person with a disability to participate in the hearing.Please contact the City Clerk's Office,(540)853-2541,by noon,April 10,2026,to request accommodations. The City of Roanoke provides interpretation at no cost for all public meetings,upon request.If you would like to request an interpreter, please let us know at least 24 hours in advance by calling(540)853-1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke"proporciona interpretaoion sin costo por todas citas publicas,previa solicitud.Si usted desea solicitar un inter- prate,haganoslo saber con al menos 24 horas de antelacion por Ilamar(540)853-1283. Jiji la Roanoke linatoa huduma ya ukalimani bile malipo katika mikutano yote ya umma,inapoombwa.Iwapo ungependa kuomba mka- limani;tafadiali tujulishe angalau saa 24 kabla kwa kupiga simu(540)853-1283. Public Hearing Notice I Page 3 of 4 24 8 53-1283(540) Public Hearing Notice I Page 4 of 4 See Proof on Next Page AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Roanoke Rambler PO Box 323,Vinton,VA 24179 (540) 307-1475 State of Florida, County of Orange, ss: I, Edmar Corachia, an authorized agent of Column Software, PBC, which is an authorized agent of the Publisher of the Roanoke Rambler, a publication that is a"legal newspaper"as that term is defined in 8.01-324 of the Code of Virginia, and authorized as such by Order of the Circuit Court, that the full text of the attached notice was published in said publication and also at www.publicnoticevirginia.com,which is a searchable statewide repository of such notices, on the following dates: Publication Dates: • Mar 30, 2026 • Apr 6, 2026 Notice ID: IHtUUIdgOOKjYsGILnFX Notice Name: Rambler Legal Ad-Apr 2026- PC Vision Zero Publication Fee: $110.00 knvir GorAehut Agent ����\1iiii1j����/i JESSICA GORDON-THOMPSON :`moo PaY'PU°< : 46 .. Notary Public-State of Florida VERIFICATION _•0. lr�rrl = Commission#HH301656 9�r�` Expires on August 17,2028 State of Florida %��F FV0 County of Orange Signed or attested before me on this: 04/08/2026 Notary Public Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof. Rambler Legal Ad-Apr 2026- PC Vision Zero j Page 1 of 2 PUBLIC HEARLNG NOTICE The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a pub- lic hearing on Monday,April 13,2026,at 1:30 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,in the City Council Cham- ber,Fourth Floor,Room 450,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Build- ing,215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Vrginia.to consider the following request: • A request by the City of Roanoke to consider and adopt up- dates to the Complete Streets Policy and adopt the Safety Ac- tion Plan/Speed Management,Action Plan as a part of City Plan 2040, the City's comprehensive plan adopted in 2020. The Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan is designed to enhance roadway safety,aiming to eliminate fa- talities and serious injuries by 2040 and cut them by 25%by 2030.This plan will focus on all users,including pedestrians, bicyclists,public transit users, motorists, micromobility us- ers,and commercial vehicle drivers. Physical copies of this plan are available for public inspection in the Planning,Building.&Development Department,First Floor, Room 170,Noel C.Taylor Mu nicipal Building,215 Church Av- enue SW, Roanoke,Virginia, 24011. Citizens may also access the plan at www:roanokeva.gov/visionzero.All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the Planning Commission at • the public hearing.Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Planning Commission by mail to 215 Church Avenue SW, Room 170, Roanoke, VA. 24011, or by email to plannin;gconunission@roanokeva.gov. Emily G.Clark,Secretary,City Planning Commission City Council will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid matter on Monday,April 20,2026,at 7:00 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber,Fourth Floor, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. 215 Church Avenue SW.Roanoke,Virginia.All persons wishing to address City Council may sigh-up online at wtivw.roanokeva.govf council.In order to sign up,the form to speak before City Coun- cil may be accessed under the tab"Sign Up Form to Speak Be- fore Council"on the left of the screen.For further information, you may contact the Office of the City Clerk at(540)853-2541. Cecelia F.McCoy,CMC,City Clerk The City of Roanoke will make reasonable accommodations for any person with a disability to participate in the hearing.Please contact the City Clerk's Office, (540)853-2541,by noon,April. 10,2026,to request accommodations. The City of Roanoke provides interpretation at no cost for all public meetings,upon request.If you would like to request an interpreter,please let us know at least 24 hours in advance by calling(540)853-1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke proporciona interpretation sin costo por todas citas pi blicas,previa solicitud.Si usted desea solicitar un interprete,haganoslo saber con al menos 24 horas de antelaci6u porllamar(540)853-1283. Jiji la Roanoke linatoa huduma ya ukalimani bila malipo katika mikutano yote ya umma,inapoombwa.Iwapo ungependa kuom- ba mkalimani,tafadhali tujulishe angalau saa 24 kabla kwa kupi- ga simu(540)853-1283. Published on Roanoke Rambler (http://www.roanokerambler. corn/):March 30;April 6,2026 Rambler Legal Ad-Apr 2026- PC Vision Zero I Page 2 of 2 CARDINAL NEWS ' aiigt, w esourxwesrnxo sournsme vixcixin See Proof on Next Page AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION Cardinal News P.O. Box 4455, Roanoke,VA 24015 (540) 467-2189 State of Florida, County of Broward, ss: I, Anjana Bhadoriya, of lawful age, being duly sworn upon oath depose and say'that I am an agent of Column Software, PBC, duly appointed and authorized agent of the Publisher of Cardinal News, a publication that is a "legal newspaper"as that term is defined in 8.01-324 of the Code of Virginia, and authorized as such by Order of the Circuit Court, that the full text of the attached notice was published in said publication and also at www.publicnoticevirginia.com, which is a searchable statewide repository of such notices, on the following dates. Publication Dates: • Mar 30, 2026 • Apr 6, 2026 Notice ID: 3xOSP8AjGFm12Au6VHNC Notice Name: Legal Ad -April 2026 -Vision Zero PC Only Publication Fee: $235.00 AMja,a 81adoryet Agent aaauwnuriun \\\\��PQY p`� / SHERI SMITH __' �P•':��% Notary Public-State of Florida VERIFICATION 2 • lli,ll A - a Commission#HH269383 ��i F...,,,....00�� Expires on May 31,2026 State of Florida %�oFF\ , County of Broward Signed or attested before me on this: 04/07/2026 l&liitt Notary Public Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof. Legal Ad -April 2026 -Vision Zero PC Only I Page 1 of 2 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, April 13,2026,at 1:30 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,in the City Council Chamber,Fourth Floor,Room 450,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building,215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Virginia,to consider the following request A request by the City of Roanoke to consider and adopt updates to the Complete Streets Policy and adopt the Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan as a part of City Plan 2040,the City's comprehensive plan adopted in 2020.The Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan is designed to enhance roadway safe- ty,aiming to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries by 2040 and cut them by 25% by 2030.This plan will focus on all users,including pedestrians,bicyclists,public transit users,motorists,micromobility users,and commercial vehicle drivers. Physical copies of this plan are available for public inspection in the Planning,Building, &Development Department,First Floor,Room 170,Noel C.Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW,Roanoke,Virginia,24011.Citizens may also access the plan at tvww.roanokeva.gov/visionzero.All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the Planning Commission at the public hearing.Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Planning Commission by mail to 215 Church Avenue SW,Room 170,Roanoke,VA,24011,or by email to planningcommission@roanokeva.gov. Emily G.Clark,Secretary,City Planning Commission City Council will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid matter on Monday,April 20, 2026,at 7:00 p.m.,or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,in the City Council Chamber,Fourth Floor,Room 450,Noel C.Tayrlor Municipal Building,215 Church Av- enue SW,Roanoke,Virginia.All persons wishing to address City Council may sign-up online at www.roanokeva.gov/council.In order to sign up,the form to speak before City Council may be accessed under the tab'Sign Up Form to Speak Before Council"on the left of the screen.For further information,you may contact the Office of the City Clerk at (540)853-2541. Cecelia F.McCoy,CMC,City Clerk The City of Roanoke will make reasonable accommodations for any person with a dis- ability to participate in the hearing.Please contact the CityClerk's Office,(540)853-2541, by noon,April 10,2026,to request accommodations. The City of Roanoke provides interpretation at no cost for all public meetings,upon re- quest.If you would like to request an interpreter,please let us know at least 24 hours in advance by calling(540)853-1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke proporciona-interpretacion sin costo por todas cites riblicas, previa solicitud.Si usted desea solicitar un interprete,haganoslo saber con al menos 24 horas de antelacion por Ilamar(540)853-1283. Jiji la Roanoke linatoa huduma ya ukalimani bits malipo katika mikutano yote ya umma, inapoombwa.Iwapo ungependa kuomba mkalimani,tafadhali tujulishe angalau saa 24 kabla kwa kupiga simu(540)853-1283. Legal Ad -April 2026 -Vision Zero PC Only I Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City Planning Commission for the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing in the City Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, Room 450,Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, 24011, on April 13, 2026, at 1:30 pm, or as soon as the matter may be heard, to consider and to provide the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council with respect to proposed amendments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke(1979), as amended, to consider(1) proposed zoning amendments related to the Council Member Initiatives to evaluate various aspects of the zoning code, including vape shop regulations, the September 16,2024 housing ordinance, and other identified community concerns, and (2)proposed amendments to City Plan 2040, the City's Comprehensive Plan, by adopting amendments to the Evans Spring Master Plans, all as further described below. (1) The proposed Zoning Amendments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, are intended to facilitate context sensitive housing development; to promote community health and wellness; to encourage purposeful land use to make changes to the use tables for multiple purpose, industrial, and planned unit development districts; and to make changes to clarify and correct elements of the zoning code, such amendments being for the public purposes of promoting public health,public safety, and good zoning practice. Such amendments do not involve a change in the zoning map classification of any parcels of land. The Planning Commission will consider these Zoning Amendments: 1. Section 36.2-205, Dimensional regulations, changes to lot frontage and maximum front yard requirements; addition of section description for infill development; 2. Section 36.2-312, Dimensional regulations for residential districts, changes to the dimensional regulations for residential districts with some changes resulting in a reduction of allowable density in certain districts; 3. Section 36.2-315, Use table for multiple purpose districts, changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the multiple purpose districts; 4. Section 36.2-322, Use table for industrial districts, changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the industrial districts; 5. Section 36.2-327, Use table for planned unit development districts, changes to the permitted uses and uses by special exception in the planned unit development districts; 6. Section 36.2-403, Accessory uses and structures, addition of supplemental regulations for portable storage containers; 7. Section 36.2-405, Bed and breakfast,homestay, and short-term rental establishments, changes to standards for homestay establishments; 7965\0047\13245867v1 8. Section 36.2-407.3, Data Center, addition of supplemental regulations for data centers; 9. Section 36.2-409.1, Dwellings, addition of parking and design standards for specific dwelling types; 10. Section 36.2-426.1, Retail Sales of Vape and Tobacco Establishments, addition of supplemental regulations for vape and tobacco establishments; 11. Section 36.2-429, Temporary uses, changes to zoning districts for produce stands; 12. Section 36.2-540, Zoning amendments, changes to staff roles for zoning amendment procedure; 13. Section 36.2-625, Outdoor lighting standards, changes to wording for pole-mounted lighting; 14. Section 36.2-644, Overall tree canopy requirements, changes to internal City Code references; 15. Section 36.2-646, Façade planting, changes to building conditions where façade plantings are required; 16. Appendix A, Definitions, additions, removal, and changes to definitions; 17. Appendix B, Submittal Requirements, changes to Basic Development Plan submission requirements; On February 2, 2026, the City Council adopted a Resolution(Resolution No. 43349-020226) initiating the evaluation of various aspects of the Zoning Code, including vape shop regulations, the September 16, 2024 housing ordinance, and other identified community concerns to provide additional opportunities for further public comment, Planning Commission review, and City Council review. The Zoning Amendments that will be considered: 1. Reduce the density of dwelling units permitted in certain residential zoning districts. More specifically, some of the proposed amendments to Chapter 36.2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, would reduce the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on residentially zoned property, specifically in the R-12, R-5, R-3, RM-1, and RM-2 Residential Districts. Geographically, these residential districts are located throughout the City and cover the bulk of the City's land area and almost all of Roanoke's housing supply. The purposes of the R-12, R-5,R-3, and RM-1 districts are to provide a range of housing options and to provide opportunities for compatible home-based entrepreneurship. Dimensional and supplemental regulations implement standards that control building 7965\0047\13245867v1 form building placement and other characteristics of development. These districts cover the majority of the City's land area and contain most of Roanoke's housing supply. The purpose of the RM-2 district is to provide for all housing types with an emphasis on townhouses, cottage courts, and apartment buildings. This district is generally mapped in areas near or adjacent to neighborhood and other commercial centers,but also may be applied to existing apartment buildings in neighborhood contexts. Depending on the zoning district, the proposed amendments include,but may not be limited to: increasing the minimum lot area required for each dwelling unit,reducing the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on a lot, and/or establishing a maximum lot area. The following chart describes the changes in more detail: Zoning District RA R-12 R-7 R-5 R-3 RM-1 RM-2 RMF Minimum lot area for each 43,560 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 1,500 1,000 1,000 dwelling (sq ft) 4,000 2,000 1,500 1,500 Minimum lot area for each 1,500 1,000 1,000 group living adult resident or room (sq ft) Corner lot maximum number of 1 3 4 6- 6- No No dwellings 4 4 6 limit limit Interior or through lot maximum 1 1 2 3 4 No No number of dwellings 2 2 3 limit limit Minimum area of a lot 43,560 8,000 5,500 4,000 3,000 4,000 4,000, 15,000 Maximum area of a lot 15,000 24,000 Note:Text to be removed is in red strike-brevet,and new proposed text is in red underline, For a map of the residentially zoned property subject to the changes, please visit www.roanokeva.govicmi/map 2. Implement priorities of the City Plan 2040 related to housing, neighborhood choice, complete neighborhoods, equity, context-sensitive design, health, wellness, and purposeful land use; 3. Address the need for a broad range of housing types available; 4. Add use classification and supplemental regulations for vape and tobacco establishments, data centers, data processing facilities, and inpatient mental health and substance abuse clinics; 5. Limit districts where self-storage uses are permitted to allow more efficient use of the City's limited developable land area; 6. Clarify and correct elements of the zoning code that are confusing, hard to read, or difficult to enforce; 7965\0047\13245 867v 1 7. Change where certain uses are permitted, not permitted, or require a special exception in the following use categories: Commercial; Industrial; Assembly and Entertainment; Public, Institutional, and Community Facilities; Warehousing and Distribution. (2) A request by the City of Roanoke to consider adopting amendments to Evans Spring Master Plan adopted as a part of City Plan 2040, the City's comprehensive plan. Evans Spring Master Plan is designed to provide a vision that addresses neighborhood needs, environmental conditions, market conditions,'economic impacts, and infrastructure constraints. A physical copy of the proposed amendments is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Suite 456,Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, 24011. Citizens may also access the amendments, along with explanatory material, at http://roanokeva.gov/cmi. The ordinance ordaining, amending, and/or adopting the amendments described above shall become effective upon adoption by the City Council for the City of Roanoke. All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the City Planning Commission at the public hearing. Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Planning Commission by mail to 215 Church Avenue SW, Room 166, Roanoke, VA 24011, or by email to planningcommission@roanokeva.gov. Emily G. Clark, Secretary, City Planning Commission The City of Roanoke will make reasonable accommodations for any person with a disability to participate in the hearing. Please contact the City Clerk's Office, (540) 853-2541,by noon, April 10, 2026, to request accommodations. The City of Roanoke provides interpretation at no cost for all public meetings, upon request. If you would like to request an interpreter, please let us know at least 24 hours in advance by calling(540) 853-1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke proporciona interpretacion sin costo por todas citas publicas, previa solicitud. Si usted desea solicitar un interprete,haganoslo saber con al menos 24 horas de antelacion por llamar(540) 853,1283. Jiji la Roanoke linatoa huduma ya ukalimani bila malipo katika mikutano yote ya umma, inapoombwa. Iwapo ungependa kuomba mkalimani, tafadhali tujulishe angalau saa 24 kabla kwa kupiga simu(540) 853-1283. J,L4 ySl ,.�)IiS Lea jLii&I Lci:stiL�jL��i 4Lye iil CJ9.14 cr°s� uL L�ada 01y1 J i Jl uli J�J.)1 J (540) 853-1283 u.s bJUL li vy1-4" 24 J91.1 ig12t .yl,,ats.:,C.Jt may, 7965\0047\13245 8 67v 1 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The City of Roanoke Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, May 11, 2026, at 1:30 p.m.,,or as soon thereafter as the matters may be heard, in the CSA Conference Room (Formerly EOC Conference Room), First Floor, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, to consider the following requests: A request by the City of Roanoke to consider and adopt updates to the Complete Streets Policy 'and adopt the Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan as a part of City Plan 2040, the City's comprehensive plan adopted in 2020. The Safety Action Plan/Speed Management Action Plan is designed to enhance roadway safety, aiming to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries by 2040 and cut them by 25% by 2030. This plan will focus on all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit users, motorists, micromobility users, and commercial vehicle drivers. Application by Douglas Devine to rezone property located at 1007 3 '/2 Street SE, bearing Official;Tax Map No. 4020920, from I-1, Light Industrial District, to UF, Urban Flex District. The land use categories permitted in UF include residential; accommodations and group living; commercial; industrial; warehousing and distribution; assembly and entertainment; public, institutional and community facilities; transportation; utility; agricultural;_and accessory, but does not specify density. The comprehensive plan designates the property for urban flex use. The proposed use is a laundromat. Please note that this is a change in location for the May 11, 2026, Planning Commission public hearing only. Physical copies of the plan and application are available for public inspection in the Planning, Building, & Development Department, First Floor, Room 170, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, 24011. Citizens may also access the plan and application at www.roanokeva.gov/1088. All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the Planning Commission at the public hearing. Written comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Planning Commission by mail to 215 Church Avenue $W, Room 170, Roanoke, VA, 24011, or by email to planningcommission a(�roanokeva.gov. Emily G. Clark, Secretary, City Planning Commission City Council will hold a public hearing on the aforesaid matters on Monday, May 18, 2026, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matters may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, Fourth Floor,_Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia. All persons wishing to address City Council may sign-up online at www.roanokeva.gov/council. In order to sign up, the form to speak before City Council may be accessed under the tab "Sign Up Form to Speak Before Council" on the left of the screen. For further information, you may contact the Office of the City Clerk at (540)853-2541. Cecelia F. McCoy, CMC, City Clerk The City of Roanoke Board of Zoning Appeals will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, Fourth Floor, Room 450,, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, to consider the following application: Application by Least of These Ministry to appeal a Zoning Administrator's Determination dated February 25, 2026, pertaining to the zoning use classification for property located at 420 Luck Avenue SW, bearing Official Tax Map No. 1012406. Physical copies of this application are available for public inspection in the Planning, Building, & Development Department, First Floor, Room 166, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia, 24011. Citizens may also access the application at https://www.roanokeva.gov/1074. All persons shall be afforded an opportunity to address the Board of Zoning Appeals at the public hearing. Written. comments may be forwarded to the Secretary to the Board of Zoning Appeals by mail to 215 Church Avenue SW, Room 170, Roanoke, VA 24011, or by email to planning@roanokeva.gov. Emily G. Clark, Secretary, City Board of Zoning Appeals t The City of Roanoke will make reasonable accommodations for any person with a disability to participate in the;hearing. Please contact the City Clerk's Office, (540)853- 2541, by noon, May 8, 2026,;to request accommodations. The City of Roanoke provide's interpretation at no cost for all public meetings, upon request. If you would like to request an interpreter, please let us know at least 24 hours in advance by calling (540) 853-1283. La Ciudad de Roanoke proporciona interpretaciOn sin costo por todas citas publicas, previa solicitud. Si usted desea solicitar un interprete, haganoslo saber con al menos 24 horas de antelaciOn por Ilamar (540) 853-1283. Jiji la Roanoke linatoa huduma ya ukalimani bila malipo katika mikutano yote ya umma, inapoombwa. Iwapo ungependa kuomba mkalimani, tafadhali tujulishe angalau saa 24 kabla kwa kupiga simu (540)1853-1283. A Statement to the Roanoke City Council Friends of Evans Spring Council Member Initiatives - Evans Spring Properties May 18, 2026 Good Evening Mayor Cobb, Vice Mayor McGuire, Members of the City Council and City Manager Turner. Thank you for the opportunity to present my statement.; The Friends of Evans Spring request City Council Members vote for Council Member Initiatives Option 3 for Evans Spring including a statement that conservation is an acceptable alternative outcome to the proposed Evans Spring Master Plan Report, January 2024. We support the highest and best economic use of all parcels s a natural conservation area. This provides landowners with an additional option for considering the future stewardship of their properties. Our proposal for a privately owned nature preserve supports our robust tourism economy — a significant contributor to the Roanoke economy. We recognize that any plan is contingent upon the intentions of the private landowners who currently own the land at Evans Spring. Dr. Michael Friedlander of the Virginia Tech Carillion Medical School acknowledges outdoor activities support recruiting students, physicians and researchers. Amenities include our mountain setting, the greenway, Mill Mountain, Roanoke River, Carvins Cove, numerous family friendly festivals, and athletic events including nationally recognized marathons.iThese are all significant to the economic vitality of Roanoke. A nature preserve provides diversity to our offerings. Esteemed conservation leaders such as Rupert Cutler acknowledge the unique biological value's of the area as does the Sierra Club. The Blue Ridge Land Conservancy under the leadership of David Perry is an active partner seeking to place the properties in conservation. The Conservation Fund, a national leader in conservation and economic development, is assisting the Blue Ridge Land Conservancy and the Friends of Evans Spring in our efforts. What we are proposing fits with the Comprehensive City Plan 2024 which includes the climate action plan. The plan addresses development in harmony with nature. Conservation provides reduction of the urban heat island and its associated health issues in the Northwest Neighborhood as documented by research by Carillion and Virginia Tech. Our proposal conserves a significant forested land tract within the heat island. A nature preserve with trails, the extended greenway, and educational opportunities will enhance the outdoor recreation economy of Roanoke, provide another destination opportunity to visit Roanoke, and will enhance the beacon to those considering Roanoke to call home. The Friends of Evans Spring is establishing a community land trust which will focus on housing and a neighborhood commercial center as well as other opportunities within the greater Northwest ; I Neighborhood. The Community Land Trust will be directed by the Northwest Neighborhood making decisions that benefit the community. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for your consideration. William R. Sweet 1375 Lakewood Dr. SW Roanoke, VA 24015 205 908-9308 i z The Preamble to the United States Constitution defines the purpose of our government. It consists of 52 words and four of those words form the phrase "Promote the general welfare"; this phase refers to the health and wellbeing of its citlnl zens. As members of the Roanoke City Council each of you has a responsibility to implement this phrase as you govern. It has been established by extensive studies conducted by researchers at Virginia Tech that there is a significant Urban Heat Island effect in Roanoke. These studies identified temperature disparities across the city. These disparities indicated that some Roanoke neighborhoods particularly historically redlined areas are 7 to 10 degrees hotter than others. Northwest Roanoke is one of these neighborhoods whose temperatures fall into this range of .Heat Island disparities. On the Roanoke City website under the topic Roanoke's Heat Island Mapping there is a statement that says, " In Roanoke the density of urban buildings, roads, and parking lots, couped with lack of tree canopy make temperatures higher than in outlying areas during the day and night". These higher temperatures also create health issues for many of the citizens that live in this area of the city. i As an important governing entity which has the authority to promote the general welfare of its itizens, you would be promoting our health and welfare by supporting our efforts to save the acres of tree canopy that exist in Evans Spring I These beautiful mature trees which help to prevent higher tempe iatures through transpiration, filter out pollutants in the air and act as a buffer for the noise of thousands of cars that travel daily on Interstate 581which runs parallel to Northwest Roanoke. These trees are God's gift to Roanoke City and especially the neighborhood that is adjacent to it. Big box stores with large parking lots and more asphalt roads do not belong on the Evans Spring property; it should be preserved. The citizens of Northwest Roanoke want to live in a neighborhood that affords them the opportunity to enjoy a better quality of life. As an important part of the government of the City of Roanoke, please join us in creating a better plan that will benefit the health and wellbeing of our citizens. The Friends of Evans Spring ask you to vote for Conservation as the acceptable alternative for this situation. JoAnn Fizer Hayden